Safe Speed Forums

Question for our resident boys in blue (and anyone with enough legal knowledge to answer for certain). Assuming the following situation:

• Unlit extra-urban road
• Cyclist wearing dark clothing and carrying no lights or reflectors
• Motorist approaching behind the cyclist
• Oncoming cars, so motorist is on dipped beam.
• Motorist fails to see the cyclist in good time, takes avoiding action (brakes and/or swerves), but collides with the cyclist.

Could the motorist have committed an offence? If so, what?

Question for everyone: Do you consider that the motorist could have done anything to have avoided or lessened the effect of the accident? If so, what?

I'll let you know why I'm asking after I have some response.

TIA,

_________________
Will

The motorist has committed the offence of:

a) Not consulting crystal ball
b) Not possessing Superman eyes
c) Not covering the bonnet of car with 3 feet of foam

You should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear so if you are on dipped beam you need to slow down. That said, one of my pet hates is cyclists without lights. If they think that their lives are not worth the price of a few Duracells then they deserve all they get.

I nearly ran one over the other night because I was turning right at a T junction on an unlit country road and could see nothing approaching from either direction. Just as I started to move forwards a cyclist with no lights moved into my headlight beams in front of me. Fortunately I was able to stop but if the timing had been different by a couple of seconds either he would have ridden into the side of me or I would have hit him.

... see to be clear and can reasonable expect to remain clear. However, the problem with stealth cyclists and pedestrians is that you can't see them. They could be within range of your dipped beam and still blend in with the background. since a cyclist is held up by narrow wheels, you might not even see a break in the kerb line.

Then again, what is the range of dipped beam? 50 yards or so? I doubt that you'd be able to react and stop from much more than 40 mph within the distance you can see to be clear on your own dipped beam alone. Thankfully, we don't normally have that restriction because we can either use our own main beam or rely on the reflected light from oncoming vehicles.

Unfortunately, stealth cyclists and pedestrians tend to be to our left while the oncoming cars are to our right. This means that a stealth cyclist is less likely to be silhoutted by oncoming lights, and thus seen, than (say) an obstruction such as a tree that's fallen into our path.

_________________
Will

Now -before any bodies on here think i'm having a go - I'M NOT.

But when the practice of employing PCS0's started - one of the few powers they were granted was to tackle cycling problems.
I personally have not noticed any decrease in unlit cycles.

Quite frankly, I'd be absolutely disgusted if a motorist (driving in a normal and sensible fassion, obviously) was prosecuted for colliding with a 'stealth cyclist'.

I've never come across one on any main roads thankfully, but I did see a pedestrian almost meet his maker - he was walking along the edge of the road (with the flow of traffic) on a VERY dark night, on a nice flat section of road with fields either side wearing all black. He was on the other side to me, but I only saw him about 25 - 30 yards before I got to him.

Its bloody suicide.

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

Yes, I don't like stealth cyclists either. Having said that, Semitone has a point, about driving within the distance you can see.

willcove "see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear"

isn't the last bit one of the reasons why we have RTAs? Because people make assumptions?

Me too. However (and this is the point of asking the question) on uk.rec.cycling certain members think that the motorist would have been culpably negligent and there was a strong hint of "driving without due care and attention". Could they be correct?

My response so far has been that we should all be working together for road safety. While the cyclist has no control over the visual accuity or psychic abilities of the motorist, they do have control over their own visibility. I've also said that it is possible for a "stealth road user" to be completely invisible if the conditions are just right (or should that be wrong) because a black object against a black background can't be seen.

_________________
Will

In a commonsense world we would all work together to increase safety.

However, cyclists have been allowed to get away with blatently dangerous actions with no penalties for a very long time and, thus, now feel that they do not have to take any responsibility for their own safety.

The motorist will surely be held "totally" to blame as he/she is the spawn of Satan and must take ALL the responsibility for safety.

Not sense, but the most likely outcome.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Yeah, sadly I think they could. The fact that a hazard it hard to see does not absolve a driver from having a responsibility to see it. I think this applies morally as well as legally.

I had a 'nearly-incident' involving a stealth cyclist a couple of years back. I think I wrote about it in here, but I can't find it. I'm driving on an unlit single carriageway country road at night. There's one vehicle ahead and a nice straight suitable for overtaking. I move out to overtake and am mostly past the overtakee when I can flick on my mainbeams. I can now see an oncoming 'stealth' cyclist maybe 300 yards or so ahead. It's safe enough and I've finished overtaking before I pass the oncoming cyclist, but it could have been very nasty if the cyclist had been 4 or 5 seconds earlier. I'd like to think I would have seen him, but it's hard to be sure. The road certainly wasn't wide enough to overtake safely with a cyclist oncoming. The fact that the cyclist was on the right means that my dips never lit him up at all. I can't remember if the overtakee was stuck on dips (a dippy!). Maybe he was on mainbeams, but the oncoming cyclist was simply too far off at the planning stages of the overtake.

I do know that I could never have forgiven myself if I'd hit him, irrespective of the fact that he wasn't visible to normal standards. And that in itself makes me 'angry' about stealth cyclists. They are being cavalier with my life as well as theirs.

In law, as I understand it, a cyclist is pretty much a pedestrian. The test that would be applied after the event is not 'was the cyclist obeying the rules' but 'would the driver have been able to avoid a similarly visible pedestrian'. When this test fails (i.e. the driver would not have been able to avoid s a similarly visible pedestrian) then I think the offence of careless (or dangerous) driving is probably complete.

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

Thanks. However, doesn't the pedestrian have some responsibility. For example, if they've "gone out of their way" to be as hard to see as possible (e.g. black hat, coat, and trousers - or full army camouflage complete with face paint) would it be reasonable to expect a motorist to spot that pedestrian?

_________________
Will

Nothing will revive a dead cyclist though - no matter how 'right' they might think they are (were?).

Another 'too close for comfort' incident I had was driving down a country lane. I saw a pedestrian with a reflective jacket and a torch. As I approached him I dipped my lights so that I did not dazzle him and slowed to go round him. As I was almost level with him I only just saw two old ladies in dark clothes side by side in the middle of the road. That was the last time I can remember doing a proper emergency stop. Luckily I had already slowed because of the man I had seen and was able stop stop, but it is a good example of assuming too much.

I would suggest that the same could be said for an equal proportion of drivers, although with different actions.

I think that any cyclist who rides at night without making themselves as visible as can be reasonably expected is looking for trouble. The idiot who rides with no lights or reflectors is a pure danger. To be riding with no pedal reflectors would normally mean clipless pedals and so a more regular cyclist, so all the more reason for disappointment.

That said, we should consider that rural lanes are not for the exclusive use of drivers. A driver who doesn't see an unlit cyclist also doesn't see a pedestrian (whether they are walking on the correct side of the road or not), farmer, local walking back from the pub, dog, stray sheep. And then you start to get into the impossible situation of trying to apportion 100% blame to one party.

Its completely unreasonable to expect a motorist to take precautions against unlit cyclists in the circumstances the OP described. Otherwise you'd have everyone driving around at 10mph.

It is not one or two stelth cyclists any more. I see about 10 when I drive about 5 miles home from Southampton. They are on the footpath and then on the road , dashing through red lights.

I wouldnt feel much remorse if I turned one into a kidney doner. But the greater risk is that i might be tracking one or two of them and fail to observe an ordanary pedestrian.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

That can't be right - I certainly don't drive around at 10mph and I've encountered thousands of unlit cyclists. The only time I've actually come close to conflict as far as I recall was in the incident described above.

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

Looking at this from a different angle....(I KNOW the two aren't a good comparrison for a number of reasons, but bear with me).

Lets say, for instance (because this almost happened to me last year), a motorist was turning right out of a side road on an unlit, or very poorly lit section of road. Both directions APPEAR to be clear, but there in an unlit CAR approaching from the right. Thankfully, when this happened to me, I spotted the unlit car on my final check before moving off so all was well, but it could have been much worse.

It comes down to one question. Just how much can we be expected to see at night? Its already been stated that in theory no one should be travelling at more than 40mph or so on dipped beam, but we have cat's eyes, reflective bollards and other street furnature that allows us to see enough to travel REASONABLY safely at higher speeds (in most circumstances). Illumination from other vehicles provides us with more vision and when there are no other vehicles we have high beam, which lights a much greater distance than dipped. There are always going to be situations where we haven't got 100% vision, but is it acceptable?

When we drive at night we are 'tuned in' to spot other vehicles from their lights. I see it as the same reason that car drivers miss bikes - the brain just isn't 'tuned in' to look for them. With the dazzle of street furnature and other vehicles' lights I think that pedestrians and cyclists need to make SURE that they're seen. I was taught at primary school to never walk on the road at night unless I was wearing something light or reflective. Its not rocket science.

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

most of me thinks yeh it's their fault, but as said that doesn't really help when scraping them off the road.

the pedestrian analogy may be a reasonable measure of due care & attention, but then pedestrians have no legal requirement attached to being on the road, bikes do.

that said it's probably still quite easy to miss a cyclist with the legal requirements (reflectors & basic lights).

from a driver's perspective i think claiming they were poorly lit/dressed is rather an easy excuse and if precedent was set would be all an too easy one to use. so i'd still be happier for the onus to be on the driver to show the cyclist was poorly (i.e. illegally) lit, even if it was me.

(whether the legal requirements are sufficient is a whole can of worms!)

But just how easy is it to miss seeing a cyclist - bloke i know recounted a tale of a mate of his when he worked in London. They worked for BR at the time and this bloke used to come to work in full kit on a bike - Orange jacket , overalls etc(with reflective stripes) - told a train driver can see the effect in daylight from about a mile away-looks like a giant orange
ANYWAY - this bloke was badly cut up by a taxi ,with excuse

SMIDSY