Cyclists at night

[Santaclarita]

I'm not being unreasonable, I'm aware.

But please, for the love of God, if you plan on cycling, at NIGHT, in the dark, WEAR BLOODY HI VIS. It costs about £3 to buy a vest. Dunno how much hats are these days, but is the cost worth your life? Is £3 worth more than your life?

I was driving on an A road tonight, 60mph road easily. And some absolute bloody moron was cycling the other way, wearing black. No lights apart from the reflectors. No hi vis. No helmet. Saw him at the last second. I flashed him with my lights and put hazards on for people coming towards me so they would know there is a problem ahead for them.

If someone hit him, they'll no doubt get the blame. And they have to live with that forever. Just because he won't spend £3 on hi vis or buy lights. It annoys me so much. How lazy and stupid can you be?

Take care on roads incase there are other plonkers out there.

Also if you have children who walk to and from school at this time of year this is well worth considering as so many coats are dark coloured.

Lots of car drivers drive like idiots too. And they are much more dangerous when doing so as they driving huge heavy cars. People are idiots. Let’s not single out one group of people. Generally people using roads should be careful and drive/cycle/whatever as safely as possible obeying the rules of the road (which include cycling two abreast btw!!).

I am a car driver, have cycled in the past and have a son who cycles and a husband who cycles and drives. We are not “cyclists” or “drivers” we are all road users. Stop singling out cyclists as if car drivers never do anything wrong. It just creates a blame culture that makes people defensive which won’t help change behaviour.

It is also possible that the cyclist was caught short after the clocks went back. I know it's no excuse but it might be an explanation on this occasion.

Minimum, yes, lets single out the group of people who amble/cycle in the dark without high viz/lights/strips etc. Better to single them out here than be pulling them out from beneath a vehicle. The point you are trying to make is absurd. Cyclists and walkers are obviously very vulnerable, cars are fast and heavy. Dark is dark. If you cant be seen by a driver you are liable to die.

I've just bought the most lurid waterproof coat for walking home after work in the dark.
Fluorescent pink with reflective strips.
You'll be able to see me from Mars

Also if you have children who walk to and from school at this time of year this is well worth considering as so many coats are dark coloured.
It's idiotic how many schools actually insist on dark coloured coats.

I always carry a yellow back pack made by this company - all year round. It means I don’t have to worry so much about what I’m wearing. www.provizsports.com/en-gb/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo9jz25ys3gIVCLDtCh0F7g2dEAAYASAAEgL1CvD_BwE

And a very good front light - 400V rechargeable cateye. Now I wouldn’t go out with anything else.

If Mumsnet threads about cyclists were ever evidence based, they would also reflect (ahem) the research which shows that car drivers are less careful around cyclists who look less vulnerable, example attached. The literature around helmets and hi-vis is contested to say the least. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

Right. So theoretically then, they're safer if we cant see them at all?

No, I don't think there's any argument about the necessity for lights. But there are a range of views about hi vis and helmets, which often gets overlooked in these discussions. If individual cyclists feel safer using them, then that's their choice. But equally don't castigate cyclists who make a different perfectly legal - and according to the evidence, rational - choice.

Wishing to prevent a possibly fatal accident does not fall into the category of castigating cyclists. It is not rational to cycle or walk on dark winter roads without letting motorists know you are there. There is no counter argument.

@santaclarita & @japanesejazz
FYI it is perfectly acceptable to operate hazard warning lights for a short period whilst moving/driving to alert other road users of a hazard in the road ahead. Which is exactly what the OP did. Not illegal at all.

Cyclists and walkers are obviously very vulnerable, cars are fast and heavy. Dark is dark. If you cant be seen by a driver you are liable to die.

Yes let’s all bow to the almighty car. If you are driving so fast you could kill someone, you’re not a safe road user either.

That’s not bowing to car drivers. That’s staring the obvious. If a car driver can’t see you they can’t avoid you. That doesn’t mean they are speeding! You can’t react to a danger you can’t see.

X, if you think that's a reasonable statement then I'm sorry for you.

I can never understand why bikes aren’t sold with lights fitted as standard. When I got mine a couple of years ago, I was amazed to find that I had to buy them as an extra. And it’s been extremely hard to find any that actually attach reliably to the front of my bike. Why??

I cycle to work, about 10 miles each way. I wear a helmet, hi Vis, two front lights and one back light and still got knocked off my bike. I do urge that every cyclist needs to make themselves as visible as they possibly can. I bought a new helmet after my accident which is bright yellow with reflective stripes, glow sticks for my wheels, arm bands and new lights plus a reflective cover for my bag. I still see cyclists and pedestrians wearing nothing to show themselves. I rode past two cyclists through a car park today that had no lights

It was only once I started driving that I realised how hard people in dark clothing are to see at night.

Couldn’t agree more OP. Pedestrians on country lanes are also as guilty. They think because they can see you (massive bulk of metal lit up with headlights) you can see them (small dark shape against dark background). It is terrifying being a driver at times.
My dc have to walk down a poorly lit country lane on the way home. Being (stupid) teens they refuse to wear reflectors/high vis but they do carry torches, one shines the light behind them, one ahead of them.

FWIW, I find static lights far easier to identify and track than flashing ones. A light that is on 100% of the time is twice as visible than one that is only on 50%.

My three year old dd points at cyclists and motorbikes and says "aww mummy they are not wearing their helmet" even a three year old knows this.

So why do they still not wear one, knowing the dangers!

The main reason I wear hivis is so that if someone drives into me they don't have an excuse. But it doesn't seem to make much difference to being seen. Particularly on urban roads where the speeds are slower and there are street lights. The number of times I have been pulled out on or have to take evasive action from someone not paying attention is ridiculous. The danger is overwhelmingly from drivers not looking properly and in my experience you can be lit up like a Christmas tree and it makes naff all difference.

If you can’t overtake without going on to the other side of the road it’s not safe to overtake. 2 a breast is safer as is taking the primary position as it discourages drivers from attempting a dodgy pass where they think they can squeeze through in between a cyclist and oncoming traffic.

Funny how people get irrate at being “held up” by cyclists yet it’s cars that cause most of the congestion.

If you can’t overtake without going on to the other side of the road it’s not safe to overtake.

That’s not true. Unless the road markings are such to say you can’t then if you can see that you can safely overtake and get back in then it is perfectly safe to overtake.

What I mean is if you can’t go on the other side of the road then it means there’s vehicles coming the other way. So not safe to overtake. You wouldn’t overtake a tractor in this situation, so why is a cyclist different?