Cyclist visibility

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I can't think of a single, local road safety measure, or public realm improvement that he hasn't objected to. So yes, it's just trolling.

You cut out the first bit. You can correct this if it's factually wrong? 

[Moovart]

Does anyone insist that hi Viz is the answer?  I think most people think lo Viz is just a bad idea if you are trying to look after your own safety. 

In the end you will never know how many people avoided death or injury by being more visible because you can't measure an incident that didn't happen.  But some things just make sense like being careful, and visible however you are traveling and not using a mobile phone when driving (and also when cycling and crossing the road).

And I'm glad you managed to avoid being hit by someone who was obviously driving dangerously and illegally.

 

[malumbu]

I last visited Amsterdam over 20 years ago.  I made the mistake of walking into the cycle lanes a few times without looking.  The cyclists alerted me to my mistake.  Id didn't blame them, or the Dutch government.  It was my own fault. I'm not sure hi vis would have made things any better. This was me not being used to the cycle infrastructure.  As great as the Netherlands is for bikes, Denmark takes it further.  All credit to both countries.  

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You cut out the first bit. You can correct this if it's factually wrong? 

It is factually wrong but very typical of your posts. There are plenty of examples of me supporting public realm improvements and local road safety measures throughout the many years of this on-going debate....I just think you're choosing to ignore them because you think it legitimises your attacks. You're wrong. Very wrong (and not for the first time). As I say, I am not the one acting in a troll-like manner here.

Go take a look - I will await your apology.

45 minutes ago, Moovart said:

Does anyone insist that hi Viz is the answer?  I think most people think lo Viz is just a bad idea if you are trying to look after your own safety. 

In the end you will never know how many people avoided death or injury by being more visible because you can't measure an incident that didn't happen.  But some things just make sense like being careful, and visible however you are traveling and not using a mobile phone when driving (and also when cycling and crossing the road).

And I'm glad you managed to avoid being hit by someone who was obviously driving dangerously and illegally.

Absolutely 100% this. @march46 no-one has ever claimed that high-vis is the solution on this forum (I am not sure how some are getting to this conclusion but I think it is another case of putting words in people's mouths to suit their own personal narrative) but clearly high-vis certainly helps to be seen - I mean that's just commonsense.

Granted, no amount of high-vis is going to help with a driver with their head in their phone and they are a scourge of our roads and I hate it if I see people doing this and glad that you were ok @march46. As far as I am concerned it should be a long driving ban for anyone caught using their phone whilst driving.

[first mate]

On 13/11/2025 at 18:31, 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.

I just thought it would be useful to remind everyone how this thread started.

The OP made a very valid point. But instead of looking at why maybe more cyclists are taking risks by not having lights and in addition choosing not to increase their visibility with hi-viz, some posters separated out the points in the statement, dismissing the no lights issue  ('illegal so no discussion necessary') and instead highlighted and focused solely on the hi-viz clothing aspect, some also choosing to mock to undermine, thereby deflecting from the original statement which made sense to many of us; as one poster put it- just common sense.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by first mate

[Raeburn]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

I mean a local politician is saying this: "I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” 

You missed the additional context (surprise surprise!) in the quote;

 

“Everyone knows a fatbike is very different to an e-bike,” she said. “The tyres are wider, the bikes are heavier and you don’t need to pedal to move forward, so they are more like a moped than a bike.”

So, electric mopeds then. And in this context, initially Vondelpark, an inner city green park …which I agree, seems fair enough to ban electric mopeds from largely pedestrian places.

the quote you posted is from a traffic chief, not a politician. Why did you say this?

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/amsterdam-looks-to-ban-fatbikes-from-busy-parts-of-the-city/

Finally, my Google Streetview suggestion; I invited forum readers to check it out for themselves, not you? You seem to know the place, but seem properly hungup on my post. Please, no need to respond. 

——

apologies for diverting from topic March, Mate but there needs to be fact-checking & context.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

the quote you posted is from a traffic chief, not a politician. Why did you say this?

Who is a member of the Democrats 66 party, deputy mayor and is very much a politician (who has responsibility for traffic)......doh!

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

apologies for diverting from topic March, Mate but there needs to be fact-checking & context.

Yup. Please see above about how fact checking is very important...ahem..

 

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

So, electric mopeds then.

No. They are called Fatbikes. The clue is in their name but the suggested changes are for not just fat bikes but a whole range of bikes that are causing problems and injuries for their riders and others. Fatbikes are a particular problem.

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

Finally, my Google Streetview suggestion;

Is quite ridiculous.

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

You seem to know the place, but seem properly hungup on my post.

Yup but, you know, in your mind I clearly know nothing of the challenges posed by cyclists in the inner city and am just saying things to "agitate" and "troll". But you claim there are no challenges after a 30 minute run around the city and a check of StreetView. Right......