Cyclist visibility

[Earl Aelfheah]

People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them.

There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting).

The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should:

Quote

...help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear)...

Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by (and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't -I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

5 minutes ago, Sue said:

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

The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to.

Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..."

7 minutes ago, Sue said:

What do other countries do?

Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation.

To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere... 

[Blah Blah]

I've been cycling in London for decades. The two times a vehicle knocked me off my bicycle, were in conditions that were well lit (one was daylight) and the night time one was just me and the vehicle on the road. Both the driver's fault. The point it that most drivers are perfectly capable of seeing a bicycle in most conditions, just as they are capable of seeing a child or dog run out in front of them. Who knows why a small percentage are incapable of doing that, but gaslighting the victim is not the answer. Are there wreckless cyclists? Sure. Just as there are reckless drivers and pedestrians. But it's worth remembering that millions of roads users navigate their journeys perfectly safely every day. As a driver, you are taught to check your mirrors regularly (not just when considering an manoevre), and the first rule of the Highway Code, is to always avoid an accident if you can. My attitude when using the roads it to always expect someone to do something stupid/ wreckless. I look for it. That is the best way of avoiding any accident, no matter what form of transport you use. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

ou have no sympathy for someone travelling perfectly legally by bicycle, with good lights and reflectors,

That's not what I said and you know it. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours 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.

I don’t know it. Cyclists who chose not to follow advice? Does that extend to pedestrians who fail to follow advice too? Do you “Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions” when walking? As advised by the Highway Code? It’s quite grey out today.

If not, and you get hit by a car, should there be no reason for sympathy?

Edited 58 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[ElenaR]

What a passionate thread this is. I have worked in cycling for years, am a cyclist, a driver, use public transport etc. Driving last night with my two young kids, who also cycle, we made the same observations. It was the kids who first asked me why are most cyclists wearing full black and no lights. We then played a game who can spot all the cyclists, and count those with lights and those without. This teaches them to look out for them but also not to put themselves in a position where we have to strain to find them. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No one is arguing that people should cycle without lights or reflectors. Obviously they should. It is also a legal requirement.

But the colour of someone’s clothing? Is it ok to wear navy? What about green? What shade? At what point should we have ‘no reason for sympathy’ if they’re in a collision?

I don’t want people to feel like they need special clothes just to walk or cycle. If you have lights and reflectors and you’re on well lit city streets, there is no reason why drivers shouldn’t be able to see you, assuming of course, that they're driving with due care and attention.

But yes, if there are lots of people without lights, that should be addressed. I suspect in part, it's the change over in seasons and the fact that people are getting caught out by how early it's getting dark now (obviously no excuse).

Edited 53 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah