Safe Speed Forums

I feel there is a point being missed here. (I start by saying that I'm well aware that the overwhelmimg majority of injuries and fatalities amongst cyclists are caused by bad driving by motorists)

Surely EVERYONE has some level of responsibility to guard their own safety?

I would no more ride a bike at night without lights (or a helmet) than I would drive a car without lights/seatbelts etc etc.

If you ride or drive without these things you MUST be aware that - even if the accident is NOT your fault - you have made decisions which increase your chances of severe injury/death?

Having seen something done on the same principle in real life, I know that it's a good approximation. You catch an occasional glimpse of the blacked out figures but if you concentrate on the black to follow one, you miss what the more visible players and objects are doing.

_________________
Will

Of course they do - but when they fail in that responsibility, we are not absolved from our responsibilities.

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

Agree 100% - but there seems too be a small (I stress small) minority of cyclists who seem to think it is their right to put themselves at increased risk. This isn't actually true - as riding at night unlit is an offence - and strikes me as both irresponsible and stupid. I'd think the same of motorists behaving similarly - BUT if you drive without lights at night everyone and their dog will hoot, flash, shout, gesticulate - I don't see that done to stealth cyclists.

Ahh. You've triggered further thinking. There's a fundamental coss-overpoint isn't there?

- A pedestrian or cyclist who fails to observe visibility recommendations is one thing.

- But a pedestrian or cyclist who adopts deliberate camouflage could be something entirely different.

Fortunately, I very much doubt that the second category has any members.

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

How do you know? You wouldn't see the ones you miss so while you might assume that you've seen every stealth cyclist or pedestrian you've shared the road with, you can never know for sure.

In my experience recounted upthread, I would never have known that the pedestrian was there if he hadn't turned towards me. That incident has made me think about how many I might have not seen and it's seriously worrying that there could be people stupid enough to go about so effectively camouflaged. It doesn't matter whether the camouflage is intended or happenstance, it's just as effective.

_________________
Will

Well, I do know that none of them have made their way into my safe braking zone (because if they had I might well have hit them). Equally there haven't been any incidents - and the 'incident horizon' extends well beyond the safe braking zone.



Well, I don't believe that a man in dark clothing behaving normally is 'invisible'.

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

If there was a pedestrian at the side of the road and you did not see him, you would pass by without incident and never know he was there.


Just because you see some doesn't mean that others cannot be seen. You could pass two or three every night you drive without knowing they were there. You might assume that you've seen them all but you can't know for sure.

_________________
Will

I don't think that's really how it works - for two reasons:

- The closer you get the more visible they are. The two sorts of 'nasty surprise' are a) when you suddenly SEE that someone is far too close for comfort. b) When you feel the crunch.

- There are many unlit and narrow roads around here (North Scotland) and no late night public transport except taxis. I frequently come across pedestrians on country roads. Given the nature of the environment few that were unseen would avoid being hit.

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

I work , too often at night - and drive too many roads where pedestrians are out and about in invisible clothes - perhaps the time has come to start considering thes persons walking /cycling with no visible means of being seen as contributing to their own downfall , and negating any compensation claim .It's only too simple to get something ( white bag etc) so that a pedrestrian can be seen.

The CTC campaigned against compulsory lighting on bicycles because of the transfer of responsibility from the driver to look where they were going to the cyclist to be seen.

Granted this was at a time when there were more bicycles on the road and far fewer carts, but it is an interesting view of the history of this subject!

Yes, I think they got quite agitated about it. The point being that trees, parked cars, hedges, discarded traffic cones and so on are not lit up, and people avoid hitting those, so why should cyclists have to wear lights. I like the philosophy of it but I wouldn't ride at night unlit, that's a real idiot's game - sadly there are a lot of idiots near me...

Trees aren't in the road. Cars have reflectors. Traffic cones have reflective bands and are bright orange.

You forgot the hedges. Tricky little buggers, those hedges.

I'm not supporting the idea. I think cycling round unlit, particularly in areas without good street lighting, is a really stupid thing to do (and even in areas that are well lit). I'd be quite happy for pedestrians to have to wear miners lamp style arrangements, too.

they are if they've fallen down - as I've already said, been there, seen that.


unless they're parked facing the wrong way.


what about rocks, bricks and other assorted debris that is often found on roads?

Very nasty. Such things can be too small to come on the hazard horizon soon enough for effective avoidance. In a car, the vehicle will normally protect you. On a motorbike it's another matter.

If I see a rock or a brick in the road, I stop and move it if I can possibly do so safely. Otherwise phoning the cops is a good idea.

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

A friend of mine had a very close call late one night. He was following a car travelling at a little over 60mph on his motorcycle. He had left a reasonable distance of at least 2 seconds but when a huge hole appeared in the road just after the car passed over it (the hole neatly fitted between the wheels) he had absolutely no chance of avoiding it.

The hole was so deep and the edges so sharp that he blew both tyres and bent the frame when he hit it. He does not know how but he manged to keep it upright until he rolled to a stop. It could have been a lot worse!

_________________
Ross

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

There was a case some time ago when a motorist was killed when the car he was driving smashed into the back of a broken down lorry on a country road. The lorry did not have any lights on.

The driver's family failed to persuade the CPS, police and coroner to prosecute or sanction the lorry driver. The family argued that the lorry driver should be held responsible for the death for not having his hazard or other lights on. The authorities (I forget which ones exactly) said that if anybody was responsible for the death, it was the driver for either driving at a speed that meant his braking distance was greater than the distance he could see, or not paying attention to the road. And I tend to agree.

Whilst I cannot dissagree with cyclists without lights being critisised, any blame or responsibility lies with the motorist, exceptional circumstances excepted. If you cannot see an unlit cyclist in time, you cannot see a pedestrian wearing ordinary clothes, a dog, a pram, a child, a cow, a brieze block, whatever, in time. The driver is responsible for his/her driving, and consequences of it, and should drive accordingly.

I have no problem with this from a legal viewpoint (although I wish the government would apply "the driver is responsible for his/her driving, and consequences of it, and should drive accordingly" as a geneal philosphy) but from a PERSONAL point of view I think that if I drove/rode etc without lights in poor visibility I would hold myself at least partly culpable if someone hit me?

My Bold...

Is that how cyclists are regarded then?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus