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 Monday at 16:08 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 Monday at 18:07 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

56 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Not necessarily and I agree with @Penguin68 - as a cyclist myself I am particularly cautious at junctions at night as the glare from headlights can mean even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash - especially with some of the new super bright LEDs and if you are passing queuing traffic. Headlights can create blind spots. As much as you would like to you can't pin everything on driving without due care and attention. Any sensible driver or cyclist will understand the challenges and drive and cycle accordingly.

I would also challenge you on well-lit city streets - the streets around here are not very well lit at all - it's one of the reasons I have a pulsing front light because other road users will see that long before they see me. Like @Angelina I see people cycling at night with no lights and think - are you crazy? It's actually quite amazing how many people do and I just don't understand it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash

So even the most brightly dressed may be ‘invisible’. Ffs 🤦‍♂️ 

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Headlights can create blind spots. As much as you would like to you can't pin everything on driving without due care and attention

If you can’t see, you don’t proceed. You don’t just drive ‘blind’.

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah do you cycle much at night....? I think anyone who does can recognise the situations I describe.

[malumbu]

I've cycled 100.000 miles or more, a fair amount of this at night.  I really don't know what you are talking about.

[Spartacus]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

I've cycled 100.000 miles or more, a fair amount of this at night.  I really don't know what you are talking about.

@Rockets do not be seduced by the dark side, I feel a great disturbance in the force with this one 

[first mate]

On 08/12/2025 at 22:14, Earl Aelfheah said:

you can’t see, you don’t proceed. You don’t just drive ‘blind’.

If you are momentarily dazzled by oncoming headlights, or for that matter flashing bicycle lights, you should just stop dead? Is that what you mean?

[snowy]

Rule 115. 

[ianr]

11 minutes ago, snowy said:

Rule 115. 

 

Rule 115

You should also

• use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
• keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users
• slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

[first mate]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Rule 115. 

'Slowing down and stopping if necessary' is reasonable. Earl seemed to suggest you should not proceed at all, which reads like stopping immediately.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Slowing down and stopping if necessary' is reasonable. Earl seemed to suggest you should not proceed at all

Stopping if necessary, is not proceeding.

And this:

On 08/12/2025 at 19:07, Rockets said:

as the glare from headlights can mean even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash

Just proves the point being made. You can wear whatever you want, there is always someone who will claim they 'couldn't see you' - that's not good enough. If you proceed even when you can't see what's coming / in front of you, then you aren't driving with due care and attention.

And if someone is going about their lawful business, they don't 'deserve' to have someone drive into them (including in cases where one may disagree with their clothing choices).

Edited yesterday at 14:19 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And if someone is going about their lawful business, they don't 'deserve' to have someone drive into them (including in cases where one may disagree with their clothing choices).

Absolutely right. But, as the previous pages show, wearing bright clothes and having lights (especially at night) will probably help you to be seen. And this, after all, was the whole point of the original post.

 

[first mate]

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Stopping if necessary, is not proceeding.

Yes, but slowing down isn't. Come on Earl, you made it sound like if you are momentarily dazzled you should not proceed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, but slowing down isn't. Come on Earl, you made it sound like if you are momentarily dazzled you should not proceed.

You might slow down if you're momentarily dazzled and you're not at risk of colliding with anyone. You don't proceed at a junction, if you're blinded and at risk of driving into someone (the example given above). What don't you understand about stopping 'if necessary'?

This all kind of illustrates the point - regardless of what you're wearing, there will always be some who will claim that they 'couldn't' see you. If you're operating heavy machinery in a built up area you need to be extremely vigilant / careful. 

Edited yesterday at 15:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What don't you understand about stopping 'if necessary'?

But you did not qualify not proceeding/stopping with an 'if necessary' and that is what I am quibbling about. Your version sounded like if momentarily dazzled by lights you should stop/not proceed.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

But you did not qualify not proceeding/stopping with an 'if necessary' and that is what I am quibbling about. Your version sounded like if momentarily dazzled by lights you should stop/not proceed.

Do you read what's said before you respond? Rockets was talking about people being 'dazzled at junctions'

On 08/12/2025 at 19:07, Rockets said:

particularly cautious at junctions at night as the glare from headlights can mean even the most brightly dressed cyclist can be lost in the glare wash

If you are in a car at a junction and are dazzled / can't see, you don't proceed. And the point - effectively that it makes no difference what you wear if someone isn't driving with due care and attention, is exactly what I've been saying.

Whilst it may be wise to wear bright colours, in a generally well lit city environment where you already have lights and reflectors you will already be perfectly visible to those driving cautiously and attentively - it will make no difference to those who are not.