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 5 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:

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

I don't know it...

5 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.

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 1 hour 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 3 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At what point should we have ‘no reason for sympathy’ if they’re in a collision?

Presumably at the same point the person doesn't feel any sympathy for a female victim of assault cos well, that skirt she was wearing, she doesn't deserve any sympathy.

Same with that kid who got mugged cos well what was he doing walking through there at that time of night, doesn't deserve any sympathy.

You left a window open, of course you got burgled, you don't deserve any sympathy.

Maybe everyone in Gaza being shelled to bits could just have upped and left, they probably don't deserve any sympathy either.

It's a horrible phrase and frankly anyone using it - whether it's for a cyclist being knocked off or the more extreme examples I've cited above - really needs a long hard look in the mirror because victim blaming doesn't solve anything, in fact it often marginalises or makes excuses for criminal behaviour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, Angelina said:

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

BTW, this is a local discussion forum. So it kind of is a debate.

[first mate]

But, are there advisories out for pedestrians to wear helmets and reflective gear at night, unless they are night walking along roads without footpaths, in which case it probably makes sense for them to do so. If not, is that because for the most part pedestrians are on pavements and cars on roads, limiting contact between the two, in the city at any rate. On the other hand, cyclists, if using roads (as they mostly should) are closer to other vehicles and therefore at greater risk, especially, if as some do, they take risks and weave in and out of moving traffic. I think wearing reflective gear and probably a helmet ( though I know that is contentious) is a good thing and to be encouraged, not mocked or undermined.

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, are there advisories out for pedestrians to wear helmets and reflective gear at night, unless they are night walking along roads without footpaths, in which case it probably makes sense for them to do so

The highway code advises reflective clothing for pedestrians at night, yes (not helmets). It also advises you "wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions". I've posted a screenshot above.

Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle on well lit city streets, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I think they're perfectly visible to anyone paying adequate attention. If someone chooses to wear additional reflective clothing, that's great - but it's up to them. It's not mandatory, and anyone who choses to just walk or cycle in their normal clothes is perfectly entitled to do so.

We shouldn't make excuses for inattentive / dangerous driving.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But, for the most part, it is a fact that pedestrians largely do not share footpaths with cars (though they are having to more frequently with cyclists). It is cyclists that share road space with cars (there are not that many cycle lanes and anyway, many cyclists are not obliged to stay in them and do not) and are therefore at greater risk. I think your argument of equivalence between pedestrians and cyclists is false and not helpful. Also, not all roads are well lit- anyone that cycles at night knows that.

Edited 46 minutes ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

25 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, for the most part, it is a fact that pedestrians largely do not share footpaths with cars

The advice doesn't relate to situations where pedestrians share footpaths with cars. In fact the picture from the highway code clearly shows two individuals walking on a pavement. If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot?

Or perhaps where it is just advice and not a mandatory requirement, individuals should consider it and exercise judgement?

Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I would suggest that they are not if you are driving with due care and attention. The law would tend to agree with me too. If you drive a motor vehicle into someone travelling quite properly by bicycle and who has lights, the excuse of 'not seeing them' isn't going to be very convincing.

And what colour of clothing is it ok to wear? What about green? What type of green? At what point is the shade no longer bright enough to consider them worthy of sympathy in the even of a collision?

Edited 22 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot?

No, because the risks are not the same, until and unless pedestrians start to walking or running along roads at night, and some do, in which case wearing reflective vests or similar might be seen as a very sensible and good idea.

I think your reference to colours of clothing is a bit spurious, though darker colours will be harder to see. I think though it is pretty easy to wear a reflective vest (easy to roll up and carry). 

As for lights, depends on the lights, their positioning and also whether constant or flashing. Drivers also have blind spots, and with the best will in the world might be caught out by a cyclist also travelling without due care and attention. Some cyclists, like drivers, do take silly risks. 
 
Of course drivers should take care but as road users it makes sense for cyclists to do what they can to ensure their own safety. Lights are mandatory; a reflective vest is not a big ask, especially if the cyclist is otherwise dressed in black. 

I think Angelina made some fair and valid points and find the seeming drive to undermine those points a bit weird.