Safe Speed Forums

While I use lights almost all the time (including today when it was dark), I'v often been caught without lights.

I would leave lights on bike, but I know the police wouldn't care if they went missing. I have a letter from the police admitting they weren't gonna even look for my stolen bike, complete with lights on .

It is possible to not see a car even at an extremely well lit intersection.

I was coming home one night at about 2am many years ago and I arrived at a major intersection intending to turn right. Both roads were three lanes in each direction with a separating strip in the middle. The intersection was very well lit as was the road at least 100 metres before and after the intersection. The lights, although extremely bright, gave off an orange light that was easy on the eyes.

I had travelled that road many times and it was always very busy but that night there was nothing about. This was so unusual that I actually stopped my right turn and looked in all directions and could not see a car anywhere. How amazing I thought as I started to move off and complete my right turn.

I had enough time to say "Oh shit" as my headlights reflected back from the grill of the oncoming car before he hit me at about 60mph. I spent a week or so in hospital and lost the use of my right hand for about a year.

It turns out that he was .165 on the blood alcohol scale but the worst part was that his car was painted in a dark grey undercoat - matt finish - in preparation for final spraying, and of course did not have his headlights on.

Does anyone know what happens when you have an orange light and a matt finish dark grey car - it disappears! I did not see him even when he was directly in front of me and had I not seen the reflected light from his chrome grill I would not have seen him at all.

BTW, I was stone cold sober and because I was working shift work was wide awake.

So there can be stealth cars as well as stealth cyclists and pedestrians.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I don't think I've posted this in the public side of the forum before, but about a year ago, I was first on scene that knew what to do at an accident that was exactly as described in the first post - a van (but could have been a car) hit a stealth cyclist from behind.

I actually got a pulse for a short while, but it was only enough to pump him dry sadly.

Why oh why oh why do cyclists do this? Black bike, black sou-wester... and now he's an ex cyclist.

The poor sod driving the van probably still relives the moment of impact every day wondering what he could have done to avoid it.

better hope you never meet a tree lying across the road (and yes, before you ask, I have) or a large, dark animal heating itself on the relatively warm tarmac (met many of these too) - at least the stealth cyclist should be moving away from you giving you a lot more time to react.


Unfortunately, even here it seems, there are too many idiots who refuse to drive such that they can stop in the distance they can SEE to be clear so I wouldn't dream of riding at night without being lit like a christmas tree - and even that doesn't help some people.

In both of your examples the obstical would be visible within the confines of dipped beam and are solid enough to see easily. As posted earlier, a cyclist is riding on narrow wheels that do not have enough bulk to make them obvious. You would need to be almost on top of the cyclist before their body would be visible in the headlight beam.

Add an ocoming car with bright lights and maybe some rain and you would have no chance.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

so are you saying that emus and cattle are easier to see than cyclists?

In case you hadn't noticed most cyclists have 2 legs astride their bikes that are moving up and down quite close to the ground. Cyclists (of the sort that go unlit) also tend to have chrome spokes in their wheels.

My point is that when I'm driving at night, I don't adjust my speed in case there is an unlit cyclist ahead. If I did, I might as well slow to a crawl on every corner. Unlit cyclists and pedestrians can appear from nowhere.

Obviously if theres a lot of oncoming traffic and things on my nearside are silhouetted, I'll slow down a bit because there may be a pedestrian near the kerb, or someone opening their door. There may even by a cyclist.

If people want to cycle at night, they can fit lights and reflectors. If they choose not to, well its their life they're endangering not mine.

As a motorist and a cyclist I'll always try my best to anticipate danger, and to avoid an accident. There comes a point however where people have to take responsibility for their actions/inactions. If a cyclist is riding at night without lights, they're a bloody idiot and my sympathy levels are hovering slightly above zero for them.

And yes I have lights on my bike.

That probably sounds a bit callous. I'm not saying I drive around with wild abandon, but drivers can't be expected to think of everything.

sobering reading from tritalk whether you're a cyclist or a driver:
hit from behind at 50

Sounds like he was VERY lucky.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

shunting the topic sideways slightly

I have noticed lately a big move towards flashing led type lights on bikes. Ever since i first seen these i didnt like them. they are ok to suppliment a steady read light but not as a replacement. More alarmingly I notice that the flash rate seems to be a lot lower lately. In my opinion these lights are more dangerous. Although the flashing does draw your attention better than a solid light I find it a lot harder to really pinpoint what it is. I find that you cannot really estimate the position speed and direction of a moving target untill you have seen a few flashes of these lights especially since a bike will tend to not be 100% stable as it moves along the road.

With the new types of really low flash rate light you have to really observe it for longer to get an idea of how it is moving and also give it more attention during that time so you dont miss the flashes. I also think they are harder to spot in the first place since the chances of it being out of you field of view as it goes through its "on" phase are lower.

Flashing led lights have their place but nothing beats a solid red light at your tail.

This statement just doesn't square up with being able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear. If you can't see round a corner without crawling round it then you should be crawling round it.

accepting the shunt, answering then shunting it back on track!

I agree about solid lights. I have both flashing and solid. That way I can be more noticeable, but also the distance judgement can be carried out by people following.

That's right - but roads engineers attempt to ensure 'reasonable' visibility and few places require one to slow to a crawl. Obviously twisty country lanes and tight urban situations fall into the 'few places' category.

So I can't make sense of what Parrot of Doom is saying either, but possibly for a different reason.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

My take on this is:

You should drive at a speed appropriate to the distance which you can see is clear

Normally this would enable you to see a cyclist even if unlit

BUT

Some cyclists can render themselves near-invisible given factors like clothing, ambient lighting (or not) and other factors and a driver might well consider the road is clear having not seen them.

ALSO

A cyclist riding unlit in the dark is knowingly exposing themselves to ADDITIONAL risk.

The result is (assuming a driver who behaving in a normally responsible manner) the possiblilty of accidents with a range of culpability from mostly driver to mostly cyclist. I would argue that a cyclist choosing to ride unlit at night cannot be wholey innocent of blame in these circumstances.

Thats what I'm trying to say - it seems that B cyclist is suggesting that I should slow even further, just on the offchance that an invisible cyclist or pedestrian might be placing themselves in danger. Sorry, but no. Responsibility isn't purely a requirement of safe drivers - its the responsibility of everyone on the road.

http://tinyurl.com/yko92x - gives case histories in which the offence of DWDCA is defined,
So, if a reasonable, prudent and competent driver would not have seen a stealth cyclist or pedestrian in time then a driver who is involved in a collision with that stealth cyclist or pedestrian has committed no offence.

Of course, the conditions would need to be just right (or should that be wrong) for a reasonable, prudent and competent driver not to see the other person, but it does mean that the law does not require drivers to be clairvoyant or possess superhuman eyesight.

_________________
Will

All you say is correct, but the courts and I would tend to disagree that a 'competent and careful driver' would fail to see a conflicting pedestrian or cyclist in normal conditions, irreespective of the 'brightness' of that pedestrian or cyclist.

I can imagine circumstances of suddenly compromised vision where there may be little a driver can do. Examples might include a windscreen suddenly made opaque by splashed mud, or sudden 'blindness' caused by the sun appearing from behind a hill or building and shining unexpectedly in a driver's eyes.

But while visibility remains predictable we have a duty to ensure that we can stop within the distance that we can see to be clear. I have never (as far as I recall) encountered a pedestrian or cyclist who was so hard to see that I've been tricked into failing to see them. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - but it's surely very rare indeed.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Take a look at this YouTube video then extrapolate what you see to a situation where a cyclist or pedestrian is dressed in black, with neither lights nor reflectors, and against a backdrop where a clean silhoutte is unlikely.

Note that in the clip the stage is probably lit with several kilowatts - much more than a car's headlights - yet the figures clothed in black are not visible unless silhoutted against a light background even though the stage lights are directed onto them. I'm not saying that conditions where a careful driver wouldn't see a stealth cyclist or pedestrian are common - just that they are plausible and possible.

WRT failing to see a pedestrian or cyclist, I have had such an experience. I didn't see the pedestrian until he turned towards me and I caught sight of his face. That said, he was on the footpath a few feet back from the kerb - but I'm not sure that I would have seen him had he been closer because the backdrop was the black asphalt of the footpath/cycleway.

_________________
Will

unless you drive by looking at a tv screen hooked to a video camera then it's hardly the same thing.