Cyclist visibility

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

But surely it is obvious the issues that can arise if it is not easy to tell the difference between the two, where an illegal e-bike looks very similar to a legal one? How are you supposed to police this? I don't really get why you are nitpicking this point?

Spot on @first mate - with a subtle tweak to the throttle or the bike's computer a fatbike can be turned from a Fiets to a Snorfiets to a Bromfiets category without anyone being able to tell - it's why the Dutch police have invested so much in those mobile treadmill things all over the country to determine what category of bike it is based on it's maximum speed. They cannot tell by looking at it. And to be honest it is probably why they are favoured by Dutch teenagers as you can buy one perfectly legally and very quickly modify it to go really fast. A similar thing happens over here where some E-bike conversion kits come with a keyfob which controls the maximum power output - one click and you're within legal limits another click (which you will only ever use when you're offroad of course) and you're Warp factor 9. 

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

As I've posted before for most of the population it is easy to distinguish an illegal e-bike - speed and no, or limited, pedaling.  Many don;t even look like a conventional bike.  Really don't understand how you can confuse a legal bike with a powered two wheeler.

I refer my right honourable friend to my previous post.....the Dutch fatbike is a classic example where speed may be the only obvious indicator.

7 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Meanwhile as said before if it quacks like a duck.....

...it's a bike? 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

What point do you think you're making here?

If we accept your (ridiculous) assertion, that all "two wheeled contraptions" are the same and should be regulated accordingly; That there is a "need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" - then what? It implies that you think bicycles should all be regulated as though they're illegally modified electric powered bikes ('mopeds' as they're designated in UK law).

This is just a load of pedantic nonsense.

Again, what exactly is it you're calling for?

[malumbu]

Deleted

Edited Thursday at 20:05 by malumbu
Some may not be amused

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah the idea that you are not allowed to articulate a potential problem unless you have the solution is what is truly ridiculous and is what you seem to be suggesting here.

The first stage is some agreement that there is a growing problem; the challenge is in identification and policing. 

[Rockets]

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

What facts? You suggest all "two wheeled contraptions" should be treated the same, then imply the "need for more stringent [sic] laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle", and talk endlessly about illegally modified, electric bikes. The corollary of those arguments is that bicycles should be regulated in same way as mopeds. That's clearly ridiculous, and so I've asked you to clarify what your actual point is, rather than just relying on the usual innuendo and evasive 'just asking questions' rhetorical device. Apparently you don't need to have a point though according to first mate 🤣. As for distraction - this thread wasn't about e-bikes, or Amsterdam. You've taken it off topic, in pursuit of your weird, anti-bicycle obsession.

Edited 15 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I, and I suspect everybody else, have lost track on the point you are trying to make and I think you have too - you're tying yourself in knots just to, seemingly, pick a fight. If you've not got anything useful or constructive to say, or are not prepared to debate properly or cannot without taking it into a death-spiral, then just do us all a favour and don't. Your nonsense tactics are wearing thin - it seems everyone probably needs to stop responding to you to starve you of the oxygen of attention.

[Spartacus]

15 hours ago, malumbu said:

Deleted

Who deleted Mal ? 

Have they been added to Santa's naughty list again ? 

 

How has this thread come so far off the sensible point that for their own safety, cyclist should ideally have working lights and maybe a reflective strip or jacket after dark. I mean why wouldn't they want to stay as safe as they can ? 

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Who deleted Mal ? 

Have they been added to Santa's naughty list again ? 

Mal hasn't been deleted. Mal is getting better at self-policing and, I suspect, posted something that, in hindsight, they decided wasn't advisable and they deleted it themselves.

8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

How has this thread come so far off the sensible point that for their own safety, cyclist should ideally have working lights and maybe a reflective strip or jacket after dark. I mean why wouldn't they want to stay as safe as they can ? 

And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to  see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to  see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

People are simply pointing out (not unreasonably) that it doesn't matter how visible you make yourself if the driver is not looking, not paying attention or doesn't care.

Pictures like this crop up fairly routinely:

If you can hit something like that then a cyclist can be dressed as a fluoro unicorn and it'll still make sod all difference. Already on here you've had at least one comment about how someone has been hit while wearing all the "correct" kit. A few years ago I had one of the closest near-death experiences I've ever had, coming from North Dulwich Station to the RPH / EDG crossroads (on a bike with working lights, plus I had reflective ankle tabs and a brightly coloured top and a helmet), I stopped at the just-changing-to-red lights. The driver behind knew full well I was there cos he'd been behind me for 200m by that point, he just didn't want to wait so he floored it through the lights. The wing mirror brushed against my right arm and wrist as he sailed through the red light. That, by the way, is one reason I will rarely stop if there's anything behind me and the lights are just in the process of changing. Can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the vehicles will just floor it to get through.

And as per my previous comment, you all seem highly capable of not only spotting anyone on any sort of two-wheeled contraption, but also describing exactly what they're wearing and how they're riding!

It's just yet another anti-cyclist tirade which, coming from someone who claims to ride a bike, is somewhat surprising.

[Rockets]

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".

Hang on a minute @exdulwicher to be fair, you may be critical now but just look at your post in response to Angelina's first post on the issue where they commented on the number of cyclists at night without lights or bright clothing dangerously weaving in and out of traffic - yours was the first reply to Angelina's post on this thread. You seem to have taken quite a dismissive stance and then the usual suspects jumped on with the "you don't have to wear bright coloured clothes". So it's bit rich for you, some pages later, to be critical - you set the tone from the outset. Why did you feel compelled to take such a dismissive stance?

Also, are you not going a bit Dulwich Roads with your picture of the smashed up police car?  Are you sure it was hit by an unobservant driver or are you just jumping to that conclusion? 

You claim I am on some anti-cyclist tirade yet I am a cyclist - does that upset you? Are cyclists supposed to be fully paid-up members of the cultish elements of the sport for their opinions to be considered? Trust me, there are a lot of cyclists, like me, who do not like how the more cultish members of our sports behave or engage with others and who don't agree with the cycle-myopic view of the world and think that is actually doing long-term harm to the active travel transition. And I really don't see how suggesting it is commonsense to wear bright coloured clothing when cycling is an anti-cycling tirade - it sounds like perfectly reasonable advice!

[exdulwicher]

23 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Also, are you not going a bit Dulwich Roads with your picture of the smashed up police car?  Are you sure it was hit by an unobservant driver or are you just jumping to that conclusion? 

It crops up on police social media feeds regularly. That one came from this BBC article. Police car stopped on the hard shoulder of a motorway (so as per standard police operating it'll have had it's flashing red lights on too).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw23pnde6jo

Still someone drove into the back of it. Happens with those massive impact protection trucks that they deploy behind roadworkers too. Massive flashy "MOVE RIGHT" orange arrows and lots of hi-vis, still people pile into the back of them.

 

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Are cyclists supposed to be fully paid-up members of the cultish elements of the sport for their opinions to be considered? Trust me, there are a lot of cyclists, like me, who do not like how the more cultish members of our sports behave or engage with others and who don't agree with the cycle-myopic view of the world and think that is actually doing long-term harm to the active travel transition. And I really don't see how suggesting it is commonsense to wear bright coloured clothing when cycling is an anti-cycling tirade - it sounds like perfectly reasonable advice!

Oh, cos a few posts back, you were suggesting that cyclists were all the same and using the "giving others a bad name" nonsense and you were seemingly suggesting that all two-wheeled contraptions should be treated the same.

Now you're saying that there are good and bad ones? Maybe perhaps, "individuals". 

And for the record, no-one on here is suggesting that people should NOT wear hi-vis. We're pointing out that it's not the actual issue. Wear what you want, I don't care. The issue is not whether cyclists (or pedestrians) do or don't wear hi-vis or helmets (or any other clothing), what is being pointed out is that it rarely makes the blindest bit of difference. The fact that drivers can (and do) regularly crash into things painted in very bright hi-vis is an indication that it makes sod all difference. The issue is that they're not LOOKING in the first place. Not that they don't SEE. 

You can make yourself easier to be seen with lights or hi-vis or reflectives or cycling around wearing all-black and jumping red lights (at which point everyone sees you and posts on here about it). But the primary cause of car crashes (be that car/car, car/bike or car/pedestrian) is people not looking. And that's significantly different to not seeing. There was quite a famous article by an RAF fighter pilot about that concept translated to road safety.

https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/06/26/things-you-should-learn-about-bike-safety-from-a-royal-air-force-pilot/

[first mate]

But then you could also argue that people should not bother using lights on the back of their bike, as if a driver behind them isn't looking they'll come a cropper anyway. 

There is no conclusive evidence hi-vis does not work at all, if there was then I doubt the police would shell out to use it, ditto road workers, horse riders using the road, lollipop workers etc.. In fact, the government line was not about efficacy but concern that it might put off those new to cycling - I wonder where that idea came from.

 

[malumbu]

Strange comment at the end.  Government wants to encourage people to cycle, and any restrictions such as compulsory helmets and clothing will put some people off.

Some drivers will not take notice of lights as they are driving on autopilot hence my comment that is it not just boy racers that are responsible for my many close passes (ie less than 50 cm gap), other near misses and the two times drivers actually knocked me off.  One hit and run, the other a hire box van.

The decision to wear hi vis is up to the individual.  At night I have some, but not in the day as I expect drivers and other road users should use their eyes.

@exdulwicher  thanks for the link

[Rockets]

But @exdulwicher just look at your first response to Angelina's post. Now you accuse others of posting anti-cycling tirades yet Angelina's post was a statement about selfish, irresponsible and dangerous cycling and your response was very pro-cycling, or certainly anti anything negative being said about cyclists don't you think? There is an almost cultish response to anything that could be deemed critical of cycling from a lot of folks on here.

There does seem to be some Pavlovian trigger for many on the obsessional pro-cycling side to launch attacks when they see anything that could be construed as anti-cycling. We see it all the time - let's be honest you didn't need to wade in as you did and that set the tone for the rest of the thread and then there was a pile-on from the usual suspects.

Let's be clear, we all know there are selfish, irresponsible and dangerous drivers but Angelina's post was about cyclists yet you, and others, want to conclude that the issue is drivers.

A  lot of pro-cycling lobbyists love nothing more than to claim there is a culture war being waged against them but a lot of the time the culture war is actually being waged by them. 

7 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Government wants to encourage people to cycle, and any restrictions such as compulsory helmets and clothing will put some people off.

I really don't buy this "restrictions" nonsense. It is something that is used as an out by the leaders of the cycle lobby for every and any measure that is suggested - often even those things that will actually keep cyclists safer (which is one of the things that many cite as the reason not to cycle). 

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

At night I have some, but not in the day as I expect drivers and other road users should use their eyes.

You have more faith in drivers than I do - I always wear a high-vis jacket! And bar a ludicrous left-turn cut-up move done by a driver on Battersea Park roundabout it has stood me in good stead all these years!

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

There was quite a famous article by an RAF fighter pilot about that concept translated to road safety.

https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/06/26/things-you-should-learn-about-bike-safety-from-a-royal-air-force-pilot/

Yes take his advice - wear "high contrast clothing" and "always wear a helmet".....perhaps some folks might listen to him! 😉

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

B

 

A  lot of pro-cycling lobbyists love nothing more than to claim there is a culture war being waged against them but a lot of the time the culture war is actually being waged by them. 

You have more faith in drivers than I do - I always wear a high-vis jacket! And bar a ludicrous left-turn cut-up move done by a driver on Battersea Park roundabout it has stood me in good stead all these years!

Yes take his advice - wear "high contrast clothing" and "always wear a helmet".....perhaps some folks might listen to him! 😉

Yes, you are quite happy (or perhaps unaware) that you are stoking up this nonsense that there is a culture war the poor drivers vs the rest of the world.  

As for your cycling you, and most adult cyclists, would benefit from some training.  That applies to all road users, including pedestrians crossing the road.

I could say a lot more but then I'd need to reread and would have to delete it. Thankfully others are not so guarded.

Edited 2 hours ago by malumbu
small typo