Cyclist visibility

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Clearly not in the Netherlands which is, after all, what we are talking about...good grief.....

Normally you're one of the regulars complaining that a thread goes off topic or has been hijacked by the "what about a car?" brigade. Here we have a thread nominally about the difficulty of seeing some cyclists which has now veered wildly off into the realm of e-bikes in Amsterdam!

I maintain by the way that there is no issue whatsoever with cyclist visibility. You're all able to spot a cyclist at 1000 paces, state what they're wearing (usually also including the use or otherwise of a helmet / earphones), the brand of black clothing they're wearing, the pavement they're riding on, the red light they've just jumped, the type of bike they're on, the speed they're going at (which, if they're on a road is always so slow that they're holding up everything for miles around and if it's anywhere else is so fast that terrified pedestrians are leaping for cover as they hurtle along) and how much respect / empathy they deserve if they're hit by a poor innocent driver.

[first mate]

Yes, well a lot of the above infractions also occur in daylight...just in case you had not noticed;)

[NewWave]

Yesterday evening we were driving at 6.30pm ish and at least 2 out of 3 cyclists we passed were either in dark colours, no helmet or high viz and without working lights..It was shocking actually because in side streets without many lights they became virtually invisible.

We also witnessed an E-Scooter rider in black no lights weaving through moving traffic..obviously not in a helmet.

its sad to see someone wearing an expensive Puffa Jacket who cant be bothered to pay a small amount for working lights on their bike.

[malumbu]

On 02/12/2025 at 09:40, Rockets said:

Well maybe you shouldn't be so swayed by the false narratives amplified by some of your friends on here! 😉 How many times have I had to say it: never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

You've avoided my points, yet again!!  Anyway, to move on, and returning to the point of this thread, evidence reviewed by Cycling UK is interesting: I've highlighted key points

If wearing hi-vis helps people feel safer when cycling and more willing to do it, that is only to be welcomed.   It is, though, hard to prove whether hi-vis makes any significant impact on cyclists’ safety, and there is very little convincing evidence to support the argument that it does.

Research suggests that hi-vis may help drivers spot cyclists more readily, but it appears that spotting is one thing and driving safely around them another. One academic study, for example, found that whether a cyclist is wearing hi-vis or not makes very little
difference to how closely motorists overtake them. 

On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment.

 

Overall, Cycling UK believes that improving cyclists’ safety is best served not by making hi-vis clothing compulsory, but by improving driving behaviour, lowering speeds, reducing traffic volume, and providing high-quality facilities. We also believe that all road users,
including cyclists, should behave legally and responsibly, which includes obeying lighting regulations.

 

Rather than dismiss the above please do read the reports first:

News item:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/tech/hi-vis-is-not-silver-bullet-for-cycling-safety

 

Cycling UK briefing:

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2023/08/21-03_ca_hi-vis_brf_1.pdf

 

And Written parliamentary question

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-10/23174/

 

Government has no plans to introduce compulsory wearing of hi-vis

 

I cycle maybe 250 days a year, mainly in Lewisham and Southwark, and experience several near misses a week, mostly in daylight.  The drivers simply make no effort to give you space, and I expect that many do see me,  Something that particularly annoys me is those coming towards you when space is a little tight.  Neither party has priority, but some rather than do the sensible and courteous thing and slow down to ensure we pass each other safely do the opposite.  someone coming at you at 30mph on a narrow road with parked cars on either side isn't fun.  

[first mate]

On your final paragraph, I don't doubt it. There are aggressive car drivers and they are a menace to all road users, including pedestrians.

I have not yet looked at the research around hi-vis but I am confused why reflective anklets and the like are 'worth the investment' presumably because they make the cyclist more visible but hi-vis jackets don't? I then wonder why construction workers on roads, police, horse riders on the road, all wear hi-vis are they all mistaken that hi-vis jackets make them more visible?

I have had a quick read and found the government response a bit odd. They did not say that the evidence for cyclists wearing hi-vis clothing is weak but just that they were worried making it mandatory might put people off cycling. What is the evidence that it might, especially when we consider that lights and reflectors are already mandatory but some are cycling without anyway?

[malumbu]

Most of them are not aggressive drivers in the conventional sense, they are unaware or oblivious, the speeding ones are doing what many do, exceeding the 20 mph limit.  

The anklets because they are moving may attract more attention.  As can reflectors in the pedals

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whether they call it a moped, or a 'fatbike' or whatever (presumably it would be something in Dutch), they don't think "their goes a bicycle".

I bet they do - it's two wheeled and has pedals.....Oh, it's "there" btw....

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Yes, well a lot of the above infractions also occur in daylight...just in case you had not noticed;)

A good point. Well made. In darkness things may well be different.

Edited 13 hours ago by Rockets

[malumbu]

Why don't you start your own thread on cycling in Amsterdam?

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

You've avoided my points, yet again!!

Err, you'll have to help me on the points you were trying to make as I just looked at your post and it didn't really make any points at all.

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment.

So surely the most sensible approach would be to do both? 

Interesting that the Netherlands government is making it law that some have to wear cycle helmets, does anyone think that, to better protect cyclists, similar measures may need to be taken here? The Netherlands is always held as the beacon of all that is good in the world of cycling so might it be worth pre-empting some of the issues they are having. Interesting that amongst an increase in serious head injuries their A&E departments are also flagging a growing problem with their equivalent of the "Lime bike break" which leaves many with life changing injuries.

[Earl Aelfheah]

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

Interesting that the Netherlands government is making it law that some have to wear cycle helmets, does anyone think that, to better protect cyclists, similar measures may need to be taken here?

It's already law for electric powered bikes that don't meet UK standards as an EAPC (what on this thread seems to be loosely referred to as a 'fat bike'), that you must wear a helmet, have tax and insurance.

You also have to be over 14 to ride an EAPC in the UK already.

We have very clear categorisation of these vehicles and they are regulated appropriately.

Despite your insistence that all 'two wheeled contraptions with pedals' are the same and must be treated as such - any sensible person understands that they are not - which is why UK law and regulations differentiate them.

Edited 3 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 hours ago, malumbu said:

 It is, though, hard to prove whether hi-vis makes any significant impact on cyclists’ safety, and there is very little convincing evidence to support the argument that it does.

The only collision I've ever had on a bicycle, happened in the middle of the day, in good light. I was wearing a lime green helmet, a reflective jacket and had a red, flashing back light on. A car accelerated up behind me and went straight into the back of my bike. The first thing he said when he got out of the car was "I didn't see you".

It doesn't matter how visible you are, if someone isn't paying attention. If you have lights and reflectors, and are cycling on well lit city streets, then there is no reason for someone not to see you, assuming they're engaged with what they're doing. Whilst I think it's sensible to wear bright clothes, not to do so does not make you 'partly to blame' if someone drives a car into you.

Obviously everyone should have lights and reflectors, a legal requirement at night.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's already law for electric powered bikes that don't meet UK standards as an EAPC (what on this thread seems to be loosely referred to as a 'fat bike'), that you must wear a helmet, have tax and insurance.

This is the point you seem to have not grasped - there are plenty of UK legal fatbikes for sale that do meet guidelines - not every fatbike does not meet standards - now in the Netherlands a large number of fatbikes are bought legally and then modified - this is why the Dutch police have been stopping fatbike riders and then using roller systems to test the speed of the bikes - as you cannot tell between a perfectly legal one and an illegal one.

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Despite your insistence that all 'two wheeled contraptions with pedals' are the same and must be treated as such - any sensible person understands that they are not - which is why UK law and regulations differentiate them.

No, I actually think the vast majority of the UK public will look at a fatbike and think of it as a bike and that it is a tiny percentage of the population (seemingly a large percentage of which are some of the usual suspects on here) that we seem them as e-mopeds. It would be foolish then, by your own assertion, that the masses are "sensible"!

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It doesn't matter how visible you are, if someone isn't paying attention. If you have lights and reflectors, and are cycling on well lit city streets, then there is no reason for someone not to see you, assuming they're engaged with what they're doing.

Agree 100%. 

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whilst I think it's sensible to wear bright clothes, not to do so does not make you 'partly to blame' if someone drives a car into you.

Cycling UK seemed to be suggesting that, especially at night, you may be giving a driver a potential defence if you are not wearing bright clothing and they hit you. Commonsense would suggest that wearing bright clothing at night was a very good idea.

The point I was trying to make earlier was whether we are heading, like the Netherlands, to the need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle - the Netherlands government has been responding to medical-led calls for change - for everything from the fact that some think there are a generation of Dutch kids who are getting less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes and those who are concerned by the explosion of injuries (especially amongst teenagers) caused whilst riding e-bikes (many of which have been illegally modified).

[Earl Aelfheah]

51 minutes ago, Rockets said:

this is why the Dutch police have been stopping fatbike riders and then using roller systems to test the speed of the bikes - as you cannot tell between a perfectly legal one and an illegal one.

👆 That sentence directly contradicts itself.

51 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The point I was trying to make earlier was whether we are heading, like the Netherlands, to the need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle

What laws are you calling for in relation to bicycles? You seem to have been mainly talking about EAPCs and electric mopeds - which already have different laws applied to them. Or are you again suggesting that all 'two wheeled contraptions' must be treated the same (and if so, are you making the same argument for all 'four wheeled contraptions')?

Edited 56 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

👆 That sentence directly contradicts itself.

I am not sure it does - why do you think so? It's pretty clear what it is saying but let me explain it for you - Dutch police have been stopping fatbikes (which are legal) to test their top speed to determine whether they have been modified so they reach higher speeds - they cannot tell just by looking at them. During one set of tests they found around 50% of the fatbikes had been modified but could only determine this when they used their new roadside treadmill contraption to test it.

https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/dutch-police-have-a-roadside-device-for-identifying-illegally-fast-and-powerful-e-bikes#:~:text=247 new roller test benches,45km/h (28mph).

https://nltimes.nl/2024/07/03/half-fatbikes-checked-amsterdam-tuned

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What laws are you calling for in relation to bicycles?

I am posing the question whether people think we will get to a point (like in the Netherlands) where new laws need to be brought in to protect riders (and other road users) if similar scarily upward trends of injuries to cyclists (especially young cyclists) and those hit by cyclists are seen here as they have been in the Netherlands. Do you think we will get to that point - I suspect we will - we are already, for example, hearing a lot of Lime Bike Break noise coming from A&E departments, surgeons and those who have to treat the long-term impacts of treating victims?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't really think the term 'fat bike' is very helpful. There are basically three distinct categories - bicycles (non powered push bikes), EAPCs (legal, pedal assist e-bikes), and electric mopeds / motorcycles. The latter can be legal if registered, taxed and insured. You seem to be talking about illegal bikes and suggesting that we need new laws to regulate them. Presumably you see the contradiction with that (they are already illegal)?

The issue appears to be one of enforcement - how do you crack down on mod kits and cease illegal bikes. You say that the police can't tell the difference, but them describe exactly how they do.

The suggestion that the answer is to regulate all 'two wheeled contraptions' as though they were all powerful electric mopeds, regardless of whether or not they are, is obviously silly.

What are the "more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" that you are calling for, or suggesting we may need?

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Presumably you see the contradiction with that (they are already illegal)?

But they are not already illegal - that's the point. As bought off the shelf fatbikes are, in the main, legal in the Netherlands. If the user then modifies the throttle or the computer they then become illegal but you cannot tell without testing them which is why the government says it is impossible to differentiate between them (from a point of law) and why the Amsterdam authorities are saying we have to. You seem to be deliberately missing that key point.

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't really think the term 'fat bike' is very helpful.

Why might that be per chance? 😉What would you suggest as a new name for a legal fatbike and an illegal fatbike....

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What are the "more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" that you are calling for, or suggesting we may need?

That wasn't the question I was asking was it - I was asking whether you think we might get to a point where new laws are required.....yes/no answer would suffice! 😉