Cyclist visibility

[march46]

It's bizarre that so much focus is placed on the most vulnerable road users and not on the glaringly obvious drivers of heavy, large vehicles which have the capacity to cause serious injury and death.

[Rockets]

@march46 I think the key point you are missing is that people are saying that the commonsense approach is to make sure you do everything so those heavy, large vehicles that have the capacity to cause injury and death can see you. Is that something you don't subscribe to?

Making yourself seen is one of the most basic road safety principles - it's why so many vehicles have day running lights now.

[malumbu]

The points that at least three of you continue to miss, I really don't know why is, in London is far more important than lights and clothing that.:

(a) the cyclist being in an appropriate position and being aware of what is going on

(b) drivers both see cyclists and giving them enough space

Our streets are lit.  The local boroughs are all 20 mph, there is virtually no excuse for not seeing a cyclist.  If you disagree you should not be driving and please make an urgent visit to your optician.  Or surrender your license. 

Obviously having lights is right, and wearing all black, on a black bike, with no reflectors, is a bit daft.

I think we surely all agree on the above, And as such this thread has served its time.

The title of the thread is cyclists visibility.  There are other threads for you to moan about poor cycling. If you feel so inclined.

Edited 2 hours ago by malumbu

[Spartacus]

Black is obviously the new fluorescent (bless, you lot argue about s41t at times) 

Fine Earl, Mal and March, if you want to not use lights or wear reflective clothing then don't be surprised if a driver or pedestrian doesn't see you on a dark, foul and rainy night. Personally I would make myself as visible as I could on the road, regardless of lighting conditions. 

As simple as.

[first mate]

10 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Obviously having lights is right, and wearing all black, on a black bike, with no reflectors, is a bit daft.

Having lights and reflectors is not just "right", it is a legal obligation.

[Penguin68]

I have been trying to work out why the cycling fraternity is so resistant to suggestions that cyclists should wear reflective clothing, and use lights at times of poor visibility (like dusk and nighttime) and I wonder whether it's some sort of 'victim blaming' response. We all know (or should know) that when a woman or girl is attacked the response 'look what she was wearing - she was asking for it' is wholly repulsive - I wonder is this sits in the back of their minds - that identifying that a cyclist has been injured because they are not appropriately dressed for the conditions is some sort of 'victim blaming' equivalent.

And clearly people can indeed freely choose to dress themselves inappropriately for the time or season. As they can choose to rock climb without the appropriate kit. Despite any 'official' advice to the contrary. 

But I am saddened that those of us who would urge cyclists to make best efforts to be seen are being effectively attacked - cyclists who are injured because they haven't been seen have not been injured because 'they were asking for it' - but because the driver couldn't see them or see them in time. No driver sees an 'invisible' cyclist and goes for them because they weren't wearing the right clothing. But if you are a driver and can readily see a cyclist you will naturally take efforts to avoid them, as you do in good light conditions when they are not effectively invisible.

It is of course not helped that modern car headlights make those not illuminated by them even more 'invisible' - because of the dazzle effect (LED lights are up to 1000 times more powerful than traditional headlights) - but this makes the argument for reflective clothing even more urgent, I would suggest.

I suppose I wonder why cyclists (some) are so adamant that they don't want to help themselves, and so entitled that they think that's an OK response. Everyone needs to contribute to road safety if they use roads. And particularly to their own safety.

[Rockets]

51 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Our streets are lit.

But not particularly well lit are they?

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

I love that some people on here are kicking and screaming blue murder about the concept of being visible to others for their own safety.

Literally no one is doing that

[Spartacus]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Literally no one is doing that

11 pages says they are 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

cyclists who are injured because they haven't been seen have not been injured because 'they were asking for it' - but because the driver couldn't see them or see them in time.

If someone is travelling by bicycle on a well lit city street - just going about their lawful business (i.e. they have lights and reflectors when it’s dark), then they are visible. If they’re injured by someone driving into them because they ‘haven’t been seen’, then it’s because someone hasn’t been driving with due care and attention.

…and when you say that because they haven’t followed advice that they “choose the risks they run and I see no reason for sympathy when their luck runs out”, you are victim blaming.

11 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

11 pages says they are 

You haven’t actually paid attention to what’s been said then. Looking without seeing heh? Perhaps the words aren’t bright enough.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah