Cyclist visibility

[Angelina]

The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal.

Add to that dangerous weaving in and out, especially on this weather.

So selfish, irresponsible and dangerous.

We’re just tracking a bus route through Camberwell and have seen too many cyclists inadequately dressed and breaking the law.

 

[exdulwicher]

3 minutes ago, Angelina said:

and have seen too many cyclists inadequately dressed and breaking the law.

So... you saw them then? In spite of them having no lights (and presumably being dressed in all black / coming out of nowhere / insert any other standard anti-cyclist trope here).

I've long thought that the best way of being visible as a cyclist is to wear all black, have no lights and to ride on the pavement (or jump red lights). Not only does literally *everyone* see you, they pop onto the local forum to complain about you! On the other hand if you dress in all yellow and get T-boned, the driver will still manage to say "sorry mate, I didn't see you".

😉

[Angelina]

That’s right, we could see them passing us at the stops and then as we overtook them. There was one moped without lights doing about 30mph. 
 

Stupid is one word, but when it puts pedestrians at risk, it’s a different word.

We’ll be raising it and hopefully get some publicity about road safety awareness 

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

So... you saw them then? In spite of them having no lights (and presumably being dressed in all black / coming out of nowhere / insert any other standard anti-cyclist trope here

Maybe Angelina did see them, however how many people and drivers didn't? 

Just takes one to cause life changing for both. 

Wouldn't it be more sensible if cyclists realised lights and reflective gear is not just to help them see but to potentially save their lives by making them visible to all. 

[Kipper_1972]

1 hour ago, Angelina said:

The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal.

Add to that dangerous weaving in and out, especially on this weather.

So selfish, irresponsible and dangerous.

you're witnessing "Natural Selection" the core mechanism behind the theory of evolution which determines if organisms will survive long enough to produce offspring

Edited 16 hours ago by Kipper_1972

[Angelina]

If a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, it can be very serious. All it takes is someone not spotting a cyclist coming up at speed. 
 

Clearly, no one wants a collision. so let’s just make it easier to be seen and for everyone to be safe.

Bike lights (front and back), helmet lights, reflective strips on your backpack, high visibility clips on the ankles, wrists, lights on your spikes… it’s not hard and it shouldn’t be expensive.

I’m just wondering if cyclists haven’t yet adjusted to the darker evenings and don’t actually realise. Perhaps cyclists don’t drive but would benefit from doing so and seeing what it’s like from a drivers point of view. 

All cars had lights on. 
One of the Boris bikes didn’t, it must have been broken as I thought they were automatic.

[HeadNun]

If the cyclist wasn't wearing lights and hi viz, did it really happen..........?

[malumbu]

One more cyclist one less driver.  Big picture.

[Sue]

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

One more cyclist one less driver.  Big picture.

Not really the point, though?

I doubt cyclists who dress like this in the dark are or have been car drivers?

Surely if they were they would be more aware of visibility issues?

They are a real danger to themselves and others.

[first mate]

The other consideration is that users of Lime bikes and similar, plus younger pedal cyclists, probably don't view themselves as 'cyclists' as such and so don't get kitted out or even consider that they need to.

I also agree that earlier nights are another factor for the casual or hire bike user more used to cycling in the summer. I don't think I have ever seen a hire bike or scooter user wearing a helmet or reflective gear- presumably that is because the bike is just viewed as a transport tool for short term use and users do not want to be encumbered by any of the safety gear?

Before anyone jumps on me for anecdotal evidence and speculation, this is just what I have seen round here, there may be hordes of similar users elsewhere that are kitted out.

[Angelina]

It was normal cyclists, in rush hour traffic, in the dark, in the rain.

Just really want people to realise it’s that time of year even more careful and to get kitted out.

[Sue]

9 hours ago, Angelina said:

It was normal cyclists, in rush hour traffic, in the dark, in the rain.

Just really want people to realise it’s that time of year even more careful and to get kitted out.

I think part of the problem may be that if you are a cyclist and  can see cars and pedestrians after dark, e.g. lit by streetlights and headlights, you don't realise that they can't see you when your bike has no lights and you are dressed in dark non reflective clothing.

The other part of the problem may be that you just don't care, of course.

ETA: Do Lime bikes not have lights?

Edited 3 hours ago by Sue
Afterthought

[Angelina]

Lime bikes have lights at front and rear and reflectors.

Cyclists are required to be roadworthy before cycling on the roads. They are expected to know that cars cannot easily see them if they have no lights and especially wearing dark clothes.

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Angelina said:

The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal.

People should have lights on - hard to disagree with that. It’s up to them what they wear though. People aren’t encouraged to paint their car bright yellow when it gets dark. There is no law that saws you have to dress brightly when walking or cycling, or driving a car.

15 hours ago, Angelina said:

There was one moped without lights doing about 30mph. 

A moped isn’t a bicycle.

Edited 1 hour ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Angelina, I think you have identified a genuine issue and I have noted similar. If cycling, in its various forms, continues to grow then I think safety education will have to somehow be addressed.

[Angelina]

Earl A……

You are misinformed. There is a legal obligation for cyclists to have front and rear lights. Rule 60 of The Highway Code 

Edited 2 hours ago by Angelina

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Angelina said:

Earl A……

You are misinformed. There is a legal obligation for cyclists to have front and rear lights. Rule 60 of The Highway Code 

I am aware. You didn’t read my post properly:

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

People should have lights on - hard to disagree with that.

I was pointing out that people can wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. And that a moped isn’t a bicycle.

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Angelina]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I am aware. You didn’t read my post properly:

I was pointing out that people can wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. And that a moped isn’t a bicycle.

You are again misinformed. The Highway Code is also clear about clothing.

 

It is here.

Section 59
Section 59 of the Highway Code explains the appropriate clothing cyclists should wear in order to make it easier for other road users to spot them and help to keep them protected in the case of a collision.

Cyclist clothing:

• Helmet – Your cycle helmet should conform to the current regulations, be the correct size for your head and be securely fastened.
• Appropriate fitted clothing – Your clothing should be tight fitted to prevent it getting tangled in the chain or wheel of your bicycle.
• Light clothing – Light and fluorescent clothing will help you to stand out in daylight and poor light.
• Reflective accessories – Strips on the helmet, as well as armbands and ankle bands will help you be seen in the dark.

and 

Section 60
This section of the Highway Code is all about cyclists’ lights and reflectors. At night cyclists must have their white front and red rear lights lit. Their bicycles must also be fitted with a red rear reflector and amber pedal reflectors. White front reflectors and spoke reflectors can also increase your visibility to other road users. Flashing lights are permitted but cyclists riding in areas without street lighting should use a steady front lamp instead.

 

 

[Penguin68]

Cyclists who chose not to follow advice, guidance or rules specific to visability in poor light conditions choose the risks they run and I see no reason for sympathy when their luck runs out.

However, I do feel sympathy both for pedestrians hit by invisible cyclists, and obviously those with visual or hearing impairment which adds to their risk on the pavements or road, and to drivers who may hit these invisible cyclists and suffer guilt or trauma having done so.

And anyone who wishes to suggest that a cyclist so hit is not to blame because it's always the drivers fault can go hang.  Why do you think the rules and guidance exist in the first place? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is no law about what people must wear when cycling. The highway code also suggests that pedestrians might want to wear bright clothes in order to make themselves more visible, but I don't think many people actually follow that advice. I think people should wear what ever they feel comfortable in. You shouldn't have to wear 'special clothes' in order to use a bicycle, or to take a walk. Seeing as you pose a far higher risk to others when you're travelling by car, there is arguably a far greater moral duty on you to consider how colourful your car is, than how brightly you dress as a pedestrian or cyclist.

There are laws about lights. I agree that people should have lights on at night. 

13 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

invisible cyclists,

There are invisible cyclists? 🤣

13 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Cyclists who chose not to follow advice, guidance or rules specific to visability in poor light conditions choose the risks they run and I see no reason for sympathy when their luck runs out

You have no sympathy for someone travelling perfectly legally by bicycle, with good lights and reflectors, and who is hit by a driver paying insufficient attention, if they're not wearing bright clothing? And does the same view extend to pedestrians? From the highway code:

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Angelina]

you're missing the point and come across as just being disagreeable.

 

I'm therefore just going to close this - as it;'s not a debate or an argument

 

DRIVERS  - please pay extra care as there are cyclists who are very low visibility and without lights or suitable clothing

CYCLISTS - Put lights on your bike - front and back - and reflective strips at the very least. Consider other road users and pedestrians. 

EVERYONE - Be safe

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Angelina said:

you're missing the point and come across as just being disagreeable.

I'm not missing the point, I don't agree that people must wear special clothes when walking or cycling. There is no law on this and despite the highway code suggesting clothing that cyclists and pedestrians might consider wearing after dark, I doubt you wear a reflective sash when walking in the evening. It's also a fact that a bicycle and a moped are different things. It's not unreasonable to point out where someone conflates the two.

What is 'disagreeable', is Penguin68 suggesting that we should have no sympathy for someone hit by a careless driver, if they weren't wearing particular clothes that he deems appropriate.

People should obviously have lights on their bikes when travelling after dark.

Edited 1 hour ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Moovart]

There does seem to be increasing use of an unofficial cycling get up which is black trousers, black jacket, black headgear (not usually a helmet) which makes cyclists and electric motorised cycle riders effectively invisible at night. 

For example, a number of cycling delivery drivers seem to choose this get up.  It is their choice but it's a risky choice and a difficult one for a rational person to understand.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

People travelling by bicycle should have lights and reflectors of course. Assuming they do, then the are perfectly visible for anyone paying adequate attention.

I don't like this idea of 'invisible' cyclists - it sounds like an absolute cop out. As pointed out above, even when you do wear every fluorescent bit of clothing going and have all the lights and reflectors possible, drivers will still claim they didn't see you. We need to push back on that excuse. If you're driving a powerful motor vehicle through a built up area, then there is a heavy responsibility on you to take care and look out for pedestrians and cyclists. It feels like the burden of responsibility is slightly skewed here. There are lot's of black cars. They pose a far greater risk to others than pedestrians or cyclists. I don't hear people calling for them to be painted brighter colours.

We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.

[Sue]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.

But there's a case for advisory guidance at least, surely?

It's a safety issue, and surely just common sense?

What do other countries do?

And are there any statistics for accidents involving cyclists which compare those in daylight and those in dusk or at night, with and without street lighting?