Cyclist visibility

[malumbu]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

If that was the case then the Highway Code would not make the stipulation they do? As I said before that rule seems to be taken by some cyclists to justify inconsiderate and selfish cycling

 

Did you look at the video?  There are two professionals that know more about driving and cycling technique than you, and even more than me.  I expect you just dismissed my informed views as you always do.

This thread is about cyclists who are more vulnerable as they do not use lights at night.  Poor position in the road also makes you more vulnerable.  If you choose to cycle close to parked cars then you may one day have a door open on you. If you choose not to adopt the primary position on narrow roads where there is not space for a car to overtake you with the appropriate gap, then again one day you may be knocked off.

Both the fault of the driver/vehicle occupant, but you will come off a lot worse.  And a risk you could reduce by actually listening to advice.

Here it is again to save you scrolling up.

https://road.cc/content/news/134661-video-tells-driving-instructors-why-cyclists-ride-primary-position 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Anyone concerned about cyclists on London streets not being 'seen', should be strongly advocating for their taking primary position whenever appropriate. I often cringe when I see cyclists riding close to parked cars, or getting over to the left as they approach a traffic island (knowing there is a good chance they'll be dangerously squeezed by a driver where the lane narrows).

Along with the 'lifesaver' check just before manoeuvring, and making eye contact with drivers whenever you can, taking primary position is one of the best things you can do to increase your own safety when on a bike.

On 22/11/2025 at 09:30, Rockets said:

@malumbu I think your addition speaks volumes and highlights the issue. Most urban roads are not narrow and are not the type of roads to which the Highway Code refers. It is very interesting that cycling in the centre of the lane does come with those caveats as many cyclists seem to interpret it as applying to all roads but it clearly doesnt. 

Read the highway code. Most roads in London have regular junctions, slower-moving traffic, and parked cars (which cyclists should keep at least 1 metre out from). In many cases (most) it is entirely advisable for cyclists to be in primary position (not 'the centre of the road' btw). Average speeds in London are around 10 mph - so people need to just be patient and give each other space.

I assure you it's not the person on the bicycle that's going to slow down your journey.

Edited 21 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Whilst you are giving good advice out to cyclists on safer cycling, please also remind them to have lights after dusk, wgetw pissible wrar bright or reflective itejs, and avoid the risk created by jumping red lights.

Make your safety advice the full package as cyclists really are vulnerable and need to look out for themselves and not just tely on others doing the right thing.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Anyone concerned about cyclists on London streets not being 'seen', should be strongly advocating for their taking primary position whenever appropriate.

And wear bright clothing perhaps.........seems like a very good commonsense approach wouldn't you agree?  In fact, if you're not wearing bright clothing or have lights on your bike and cycling at night cycling in the middle of the lane is probably not good advice as by the time the person sees you it may be too late.....

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Read the highway code.

I have. In case you haven't here is what it actually says:

Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations

on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely

in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake

at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I assure you it's not the person on the bicycle that's going to slow down your journey.

Well it very much was in the case of the two riding abreast of one another on the A205......

 

On 22/11/2025 at 23:40, malumbu said:

Did you look at the video? 

Yes I did. Did you notice how the Bikeability chap did not expand on the circumstances when to adopt primary position (as the Highway Code does) - and this is the issue - anyone who saw that video could mistakenly think that primary position should be used in all circumstances. The way he was talking, and especially his use of language like....."another road user [cyclist] who gets to the space first and they [cars etc] need to share it with them" is not actually that helpful at all and actually quite misleading and could lead people to cycle in a manner that was not considerate to other road users - clearly something our A205 friends listened to.

It's like the misinformation thrown around about cyclists approaching left turn indicating vehicles at the times of the changes made to the Highway Code - utterly misleading and potentially very dangerous - the Highway Code is very clear that car drivers must give way to a cyclist going straight on when they are turning left but that is only half the story and it also says that cyclists must not undertake a vehicle indicating a left turn - something much of the publicity at the time omitted - so we have a lot of cyclists who think the car has to wait for any cycle proceeding to the left of a left turning car - no matter how far behind the cyclist was and that is wrong and potentially very dangerous.

Edited Monday at 15:16 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, Rockets said:

In fact, if you're not wearing bright clothing or have lights on your bike and cycling at night cycling in the middle of the lane is probably not good advice as by the time the person sees you it may be too late.....

If you're cycling at night without lights or reflectors, then you're breaking the law and obviously putting yourself at risk.

You are far more visible in primary position, than hugging the curb - and assuming that you are cycling legally and have lights and reflectors, you will be perfectly visible to attentive drivers; There is no excuse for someone driving their car straight into the back of you (although I'm sure some would still claim otherwise).

Re. the highway code - If you are cycling alongside a line of parked cars, then you should be at least a metre away from them, which will invariably put you close to the centre of the lane on most streets. If you're approaching a junction (which includes any side road), or in slower-moving traffic (the average speeds in London are around 10 mph give or take), then you should also be in primary position; This covers most stretches of road in London. You should, more often than not, be in primary position. Where there is a wide stretch of road with no junctions, or parked vehicles you should naturally move over to the left.

On 22/11/2025 at 09:30, Rockets said:

Most urban roads are not narrow and are not the type of roads to which the Highway Code refers.

They are. Most urban roads are slower-moving, relatively narrow, lined with parked vehicles and have regular junctions / connecting side roads.

If you are genuinely concerned about people being visible, then you should be encouraging them to ride in primary position whenever appropriate.

18 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Whilst you are giving good advice out to cyclists on safer cycling, please also remind them to have lights after dusk, wgetw pissible wrar bright or reflective itejs, and avoid the risk created by jumping red lights.

Make your safety advice the full package as cyclists really are vulnerable and need to look out for themselves and not just tely on others doing the right thing.

is this aimed at me? I've repeatedly said people must have lights and reflectors, and should not jump red lights (or break any laws).

On the clothing issue, it's probably sensible, but it's their choice. I don't like the idea that if someone hasn't put on special cycle clothing, then (as was suggested early in the thread) they are undeserving of sympathy should someone drive into them.

If you abiding by the law, and have proper lights and reflectors, you should be able to travel by bicycle on well lit city streets without someone driving into you and then claiming it couldn't be helped.

Edited 17 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

So @Earl Aelfheah were the two cyclists riding two-abreast along the A205 right to do so?

My point remains, and actually the Bikeability chap in the @malumbu video really highlights the problem, that many of the supposed experts aren't actually giving good advice to people or are giving incomplete advice to cyclists - much of which I think is leading to examples of bad cycling we see on the road every day and the catalyst for a lot of the anger directed at cyclists.

 

38 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This covers most stretches of road in London. You should, more often than not, be in primary position.

As a cyclist who cycles a lot in London I really disagree with this statement - in fact, most cyclists don't subscribe to this - perhaps I just cycle around other pragmatist cyclists like myself but most cyclists in London do not cycle in the primary position "more often than not". Yes I take primary position when approaching junctions especially if there is a bike box (when the traffic conditions allow). On quiet roads do I keep my distance from parked cars (you don't have to cycle down the middle of the road/lane to do this), but am I also mindful to move out of the way of faster vehicles approaching - yes.  But do I ever engage in the Bikeability chaps narrative of I took the space first so I basically tough - no, never. 

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't like the idea that if someone hasn't put on special cycle clothing, then (as was suggested early in the thread) they are undeserving of sympathy should someone drive into them.

But they aren't helping the likelihood of being hit are they - sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see? It's still seems nonsensical to me that people would not try to make themselves as visible as possible - a reflective high-vis jacket that goes over any type of clothing costs a few quid on Amazon - a small price to pay to make sure you're seen. Maybe it's a "why should I have to" type mindset - good luck with that - I hope it works out for them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

35 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So @Earl Aelfheah were the two cyclists riding two-abreast along the A205 right to do so?

Why are you addressing that to me? Ive not commented on it, but as I did say:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Where there is a wide stretch of road with no junctions, or parked vehicles you should naturally move over to the left.

 It will depend on the speed of traffic at the time of course. You should use good judgment.

Your constant reference to cycling ‘in the middle of the road’ suggests you have misunderstood what primary position is.

[exdulwicher]

31 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So @Earl Aelfheah were the two cyclists riding two-abreast along the A205 right to do so?

And as I pointed out earlier, what would you have said if it was a horse (approximately the same width as 2 cyclists side by side).
What about if it was someone riding a mobility scooter, perhaps desperately searching for the next section of dropped kerb to get up? 
What if it was someone pushing a broken down vehicle?

If they feel it's safer to ride side by side they are perfectly allowed to. Somewhere on this thread (or was it one of the many many other threads where it's apparent that no cyclist anywhere has ever behaved in a manner that everyone feels is "appropriate"...?) I also pointed out that to overtake a cyclist, you have to give 1.5m:

That means that to overtake someone along most sections of the South Circular in / around the Dulwich area, you need to be pulling mostly into the opposite lane. Therefore, there needs to be zero oncoming traffic in the time for you to complete your overtake. Therefore if you can put half a wheel into the opposite lane, you can put the whole car there. I don't really see why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's also possible that the cyclists have looked at the road ahead, at the traffic conditions, the road width, the junction / lights / obstacles ahead and deliberately taken the lane to prevent some idiot overtaking only to then slam the brakes on 20m in front of them. I quite often have to think for drivers because most just go "cyclist! I MUST overtake immediately! MUST. GET. IN. FRONT!!!" without actually considering that 20m up the road is a red light or the arse end of yet another traffic jam.

Maybe for one to ride behind the other, his / her view of potholes, traffic etc would have been bscured therefore it's safer to ride side by side at least for a few seconds.

Maybe you could have a go at all those single drivers who insist on driving along two-abreast as well. All the road space they take up! SO entitled... 

[Rockets]

33 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Maybe for one to ride behind the other, his / her view of potholes, traffic etc would have been bscured therefore it's safer to ride side by side at least for a few seconds.

It wasn't a few seconds - it was along the full stretch of the A205 - even alongside the bit with a designated cycle lane on the pavement....and you're really stretching now aren't you? What they were doing was being that awful type of cyclist known as the obnoxious ones....we all know a few if we cycle - the ones who don't give a single thought to anyone other than themselves, think the world revolves around cycling and suffer from that awful affliction thrown at many car drivers called "entitlement".

38 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Maybe you could have a go at all those single drivers who insist on driving along two-abreast as well. All the road space they take up! SO entitled... 

Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you....you allowed yourself to get dragged into the anti-car black hole! 😉 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

But they aren't helping the likelihood of being hit are they - sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see?

This is exactly my issue. That victim blaming mentality can be (and is) used in all sorts of scenarios, and it’s extremely distasteful. If you drive into someone who is lawfully going about their business, because you’re not paying attention, it’s 100% on you.

Amazing how, when it comes to the roads, you refuse to take any responsibility when caught breaking the rules, but think others who do follow the rules, but not your personal dress code standards, should be judged.

Edited 21 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It wasn't a few seconds - it was along the full stretch of the A205 - even alongside the bit with a designated cycle lane on the pavement....

Well I didn't see them so I have no idea.

But more bluntly - if they felt it was safer to ride like that (maybe they were discussing something, maybe to ride single file would have encouraged dangerous "squeezing past", maybe the rearmost rider would have been unable to safely see hazards ahead) then they are allowed to do so and your feelings or opinions don't really come into it. 

I notice that you don't come on here when there's a traffic jam of a hundred drivers all in single occupancy vehicles, all doing 10mph along that road? Strange.

It's not anti-car to point that out. It's highlighting your motornormative attitude. Cars - all normal, proper people drive cars, carry on.

Bloody hell, someone is cycling along next to someone else! I shall get onto the ED Forum immediately! 

[Earl Aelfheah]

 

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

As a cyclist who cycles a lot in London I really disagree with this statement - in fact, most cyclists don't subscribe to this - perhaps I just cycle around other pragmatist cyclists like myself but most cyclists in London do not cycle in the primary position "more often than not". Yes I take primary position when approaching junctions especially if there is a bike box (when the traffic conditions allow). On quiet roads do I keep my distance from parked cars (you don't have to cycle down the middle of the road/lane to do this)

This makes it so clear that you don’t understand what a junction is, what primary position is, or what the Highway Code says.

Edited Monday at 19:31 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is exactly my issue. That victim blaming mentality can be (and is) used in all sorts of scenarios, and it’s extremely distasteful.

Errr it's hardly victim blaming is it: pointing out that wearing dark clothing doesn't help you be more visible. It's commonsense.

Come on @Earl Aelfheah would you not recommend cyclists invest in items to make them more visible to other road users? I do and I know a lot of others do as they take their safety very seriously.

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

It's not anti-car to point that out. It's highlighting your motornormative attitude. Cars - all normal, proper people drive cars, carry on.

If that's the case then you are surely also showing bias. If everyone used roads and was considerate to other road users then everyone could co-exist very nicely. As a cyclist and a driver I pride myself on being able to find the happy balance - I am neither an obnoxious driver or obnoxious cyclist. I think we can all agree there are plenty of both around at the moment.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This makes it so clear that you don’t understand what a junction is, what primary position is, or what the Highway Code says.

Or maybe you don't. I pasted what the Highway Code says earlier...perhaps you should re-read it?

This thread is hilarious (if it wasn't such a serious issue), the reactions from the usual suspect shows how entrenched, dangerously ill-informed and bereft of commonsense, some people are.

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

Errr it's hardly victim blaming is it: pointing out that wearing dark clothing doesn't help you be more visible.

If you don’t change into special clothes before travelling by bike you’re not making yourself less visible are you? To be clear, this is victim blaming:

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see?

…as is this:

On 14/11/2025 at 10:42, 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.

If a person is lawfully going about their business, and someone who isn’t paying adequate attention drives a car into them, they deserve every sympathy - whether or not they comply to dress code standards you consider appropriate.

Edited 21 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[teetomthomas]

On 13/11/2025 at 18:39, 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).

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".

 

Edited Monday at 23:49 by teetomthomas
Lol

[Rockets]

11 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you don’t change into special clothes before travelling by bike you’re not making yourself less visible are you? To be clear, this is victim blaming:

@Earl Aelfheah read what cyclist.co.uk says about this....are they, and the courts, victim blaming as well I presume???? Honestly this thread.....

 

Rule 59 of the Code states that cyclists should 'wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light.'

If a cyclist was injured in the day, or in poor light conditions, and was not observing Rule 59, this could compromise their legal position. If the cyclist brings an injury claim against a driver, the driver could successfully challenge the claim, on the basis of a Rule 59 breach.

 

@Earl Aelfheah you still haven't answered the question - do you think it is advisable for cyclists to invest a few pounds in clothing items that help make them more visible? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I think the £6 or so I spent on my high-vis reflective jacket was money well spent and I would hardly call that "special clothes".

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You're just quoting the same advice from the Highway Code that was pointed out earlier in the thread. It has similar advice for pedestrians - but I don't believe you wear special reflective clothing to walk in the evening. Does that make you culpable if hit by a car? Whilst (like many things), it may be sensible to dress brightly, it's not mandated and is therefore a matter of personal judgement / choice:

18 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

assuming that you are cycling legally and have lights and reflectors, you will be perfectly visible to attentive drivers; There is no excuse for someone driving their car straight into the back of you (although I'm sure some would still claim otherwise).

Didn't take long.

Amazing how, when it comes to the roads, you refuse to take any responsibility when caught breaking the law yourself, but think others who do follow the law, but not your personal dress code standards, should be judged.

Edited 17 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You're just quoting the same advice from the Highway Code that was pointed out earlier in the thread.

No @Earl Aelfheah try reading what it says and digesting it in the context of your accusation of me "victim blaming".

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

If a cyclist was injured in the day, or in poor light conditions, and was not observing Rule 59, this could compromise their legal position. If the cyclist brings an injury claim against a driver, the driver could successfully challenge the claim, on the basis of a Rule 59 breach.

I mean, that's advice from www.cyclist.co.uk.

My sage advice would be listen to them and don't listen to some of the posters on this forum for they know not of what they talk about and seem lost in their own blinkered view of the world....

 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

No @Earl Aelfheah try reading what it says and digesting it in the context of your accusation of me "victim blaming".

I mean, that's advice from www.cyclist.co.uk.

My sage advice would be listen to them and don't listen to some of the posters on this forum for they know not of what they talk about and seem lost in their own blinkered view of the world....

I'm quite surprised at that since Cyclist is normally fairly reputable. 

It's largely bollocks. The Highway Code is not law - it references law in an easy-to-understand manner and it contains guidance ("you should / should not...") and simplified law ("you MUST / MUST NOT...")

You're not breaching a RULE. You're "breaching" guidance and since you can't really breach guidance, any such challenge would be thrown out. Not that it matters as such, drivers have been successfully claiming not to have seen the cyclist that they ran over for years, quite often escaping with pathetically light or even zero sentence.
This was a fairly recent one which I remember cos it was reported on various cycle sport pages:
https://www.thetfordandbrandontimes.co.uk/news/25511711.norfolk-driver-spared-jail-cyclist-killed-a11/

Pleased guilty to causing death by careless driving (phone use). Cyclist taking part in an organised event (so there were signs and marshals), was wearing a bright coloured top and had a flashing rear light (and it was daylight). He drove straight into the back of her cos he was using his phone. Suspended sentence and a short driving ban.

Strangely, you're outraged when this sort of technicality is used in a cyclist / pedestrian case (you keep quoting the Regent's Park incident for example) but in a cyclist / vehicle one, you're ever so keen to blame the cyclist.

Tell me, has any cyclist anywhere ever behaved / dressed / acted in a manner that you deem appropriate? For someone who claims to cycle, you're forever on here arguing technicalities and telling multiple anecdotes of how you've seen a cyclist doing / not doing something which they shouldn't / should (delete as applicable).

Edit: what that case shows very clearly it it rarely matters how visible a cyclist is (and I made this point in an earlier post). If the driver is using a phone, having an argument, not concentrating, tired etc it doesn't matter if the cyclist is wearing a fluoro unicorn costume or is dressed in all black.

Edited 14 hours ago by exdulwicher

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

No @Earl Aelfheah try reading what it says and digesting it in the context of your accusation of me "victim blaming".

I mean, that's advice from www.cyclist.co.uk.

My sage advice would be listen to them and don't listen to some of the posters on this forum for they know not of what they talk about and seem lost in their own blinkered view of the world....

 

Yes, it's quoting the same passage in the highway code as already mentioned. It's exactly the same for pedestrians. Do you wear bright, reflective clothing at night? If a car drives into you, should we therefore have 'less sympathy' with you?

This path, of saying (as Penguin put it) that there is no reason for sympathy when people's 'luck runs out' because you feel they've contributed to being a victim of a crime, is a well trodden one. I might advise people not to walk around with their phone out, maybe to avoid being on their own in certain areas at night. None of that however suggests that I shouldn't feel sympathy if something bad happens, or suggest it is their fault. 

If you drive your car into someone on a bicycle, who is abiding by the law, who has lights and reflectors an on well lit city streets because you aren't paying adequate attention - you are accountable for that, both morally and legally. It's not about the mechanism of deciding levels of compensation in any subsequent legal claim.

It's incredible how judgemental you can be of anyone injured whilst going about their business legally - yet you moaned for nearly a year about getting fined when caught in your car actually breaking the law yourself.

Edited 14 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@exdulwicher are you turning on one of the cycling journals now? Maybe write them a strongly worded letter!

26 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Tell me, has any cyclist anywhere ever behaved / dressed / acted in a manner that you deem appropriate? For someone who claims to cycle, you're forever on here arguing technicalities and telling multiple anecdotes of how you've seen a cyclist doing / not doing something which they shouldn't / should (delete as applicable).

Yes I see cyclists behaving/dressing/acting appropriately all the time but I also see an increasingly large number who do not and who give those of us that do a bad name and actually put themselves at huge risk - only last week I was in a cab travelling up the Brixton Road, sat at red lights at the junction of Vassell Road heading towards the Oval and the lights turned green - a bus started to pull away travelling in the opposite direction on the other carriageway and suddenly a girl on a Lime bike shot across the junction from Vassell (wearing over-ear headphones) causing the bus to slam on it's brakes and she was then narrowly missed by one of the cars in front of us.

It's that type of thing that infuriates people and if she had been hit by the bus I am sure the narrative would have been about another cyclist being injured when it was a result of her own utter stupidity.

Clearly anyone who cycles would be best advised to wear bright clothing - it's kind of commonsense but seeing the blinkered reactions of some of the usual suspects on here just speaks volumes.

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's incredible how judgemental you can be of anyone injured whilst going about their business legally

You're putting words in my mouth again @Earl Aelfheah - you have been warned about this type of behaviour before.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah - you have been warned about this type of behaviour before

By who exactly? I've never received a warning. Not true for everyone - some have even been banned I believe?

If you say you have 'less sympathy for someone who is hit, who was not wearing special clothes, how is that not being judgemental of someone injured whilst going about their business legally?

And when it comes to your clothing standards, what is bright enough? What colours and what shades of those colours? At what point does the person become worthy of sympathy? What if their top is half a tone duller? There must be a cut off?

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you say you have 'less sympathy for someone who is hit, who was not wearing special clothes, how is that not being judgemental of someone injured whilst going about their business legally?

Who mentioned injuries? You did. You then tried to put those words into my mouth...but this is what you do...repeatedly. Many people on this forum have warned you about putting words into people's mouths and misrepresenting what people have actually said.

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Who mentioned injuries? You did. You then tried to put those words into my mouth

.....

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see?

Are you trying to pretend that your having less sympathy with those hit by a car not wearing the clothes you approve of, only refers to those hit by a car and not injured? Because being hit by a car will injure you. Think you're rather unsubtly trying to row back what you've said.

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes I see cyclists behaving/dressing/acting appropriately all the time but I also see an increasingly large number who do not and who give those of us that do a bad name...

Oh please don't go down that "give others a bad name" nonsense.

Cyclists are not some identikit tribe. There is no collective responsibility. What one cyclist does or does not do has no bearing on any other cyclist anywhere else. The only time I might accept that definition is on a group club ride although even then it's tenuous at best. What you're doing is a form of outgrouping leading to the over-generalisation of negative behaviours or attributes. 

Same way that one driver on a mobile phone doesn't give all other drivers a bad name. Same way that Harold Shipman didn't give all GPs a bad name.