inadequately lit cyclists?

[MipMipMip]

Seriously, I'm getting fed up of people dressed in dark clothes. If they do have lights it's usually just a small one that can be easily hidden. The other day there was a woman dressed in black, no rear light and a dark child's seat (fortunately no child). Would it be so hard to wear a reflective top and put some reflectors on the back of the child seat?

If you get hit by a car even if you're badly dressed it will be the driver's fault. They should of course be looking out but you can make it easier for them. And you'll be the one in pain - surely people want to avoid that?!

Don't even get me started on the inability to use bells when someone is in front of cyclists on a path - pedestrians aren't psychic!

Ivykat, I'm a careful driver, don't drink or use my phone while driving and have my eyes tested every six months. I drive a big car with good headlights.

The truth of the matter is that a person with no lights, reflectives and dresses in dark clothes will be almost invisible, especially against hedges unless the headlights happened to pick them up.

A poster earlier in the thread posted and good picture of a horse with and without high viz. I suggest you go and look at it.

Questionablemou

The onus still needs to be on the driver not to injure and kill other road users when those road users are behaving within the law.

If you are driving carefully in a legal car and other road users start blamuNg you for crashes and suggesting that you drive more carefully as then you will be safer from not so careful drivers - would you not want to suggest that first perhaps take the drivers that are an issue?

As for doing all we can to prevent ourselves from crime, do explain how do you get victims of crime to stop the crimes happening to them? I'm sure there are plenty of victims of crime that will be wanting to hear your expertise engineerthymb

Yabu re. bells. Proper bikes don't have bells on them!

Want to see how brainwashing by the car industry works

Some posters: "I wish some cyclists would operate within the law and use equipment to ensure they are visible (such as lights which cars are required to do), to minimise the road risks to themselves and others as stated in the Highway code. They give those operating within the law a bad name."

Some other posters: "It's victim blaming to expect those cyclists operating within the law to do anything to ensure they are more visible to minimise the road risks to themselves and others as stated in the Highway code. Plus pedestrians should watch where they are going to boot."

Some posters: " We were talking about the ones that DON'T adhere to the law"

Some other posters "victim blaming"

Some posters: "Those not...."

Some other posters: "VICTIM BLAMING"

And those posters are the first to say cyclists are hated for no reason.

My DS and I have taken to playing a game of "good cyclist/bad cyclist" which is based on how close we are when we see them. An appropriately lit and hi-vised cyclist we can spot from quite a long way (on a straight road the other night I spotted one a good 150 metres up the road), but if they're not lit up or wearing hi-vis we might not see them until we're extremely close.

DS is doing his crying proficiency in Spring. He also has ASD. I'm drumming the rules into him now about making himself visible.

That's not to say I don't hold car drivers responsible too - there are some real dicks on the road and they're the ones in metal boxes who will cause more harm ultimately.

But I think back to when I used to cycle to and from school in my back uniform. My DPs made me wear a helmet, lights and hi-vis, whilst my friends parents didn't. I used to get terribly teased for it and told "The cars have to look out for you, it's their responsibility." This is what people were teaching their pre-teens! My parents were much more safety conscious and said yes, it was their responsibility, but only if I was also responsible and lit up.

If we're all using the roads together we need to be more considerate. A cyclist all in black and no lights almost swerved in front of me the other night to make a turn into their driveway. They didn't signal so I began passing them with a safe gap as I was well aware they were there, so when they swerved out they had space and avoided an accident. Of course, I was called a cunt, but if you're going to be in your black suit, cycling with no lights, not signalling and just swerving across the road then who really is the cunt? Cunts in cars, cunts on bikes, we're all capable of it.

RhodaBorrocks what a disgusting attitude. Don't you know that's VICTIM BLAMING. You shouldn't have been out on the roads in your death trap of a metal box.

I'm a disgruntled pedestrian who is sick of cyclists who think that just because they don't have the stamina to work their way back up to their preferred speed it gives them the right to plough through crossings with the lights against them, sending pedestrians diving for cover.

I totally agree with this, and I used to be a cyclist. I always had high vis and lights.

I don't think cyclists realise that wearing dark clothes, and no lights after dark, makes them virtually invisible.

wasonthelist

Fair enough. I would be grateful that you'd taken the time to try to keep me safe, but many cyclists seem to want to wage war with drivers (and vice versa).

Saw a lot more hi visit tonight - has Mumsnet been talking?!

There's a cyclist I regularly cross paths with near home in London who is the most visible I've ever seen. He's got a hi-vis jacket and, in addition to the usual forward and backward lights he's got a third small steady light on the handlebars turned towards his own jacket, which makes it impossible not to see him. Brilliant in more ways than one.

BTW, bicycle lights in the city and on the country roads / off road paths serve different functions. In the city they're so cyclists can be seen, and blinking is better to distinguish you from a background of other car and shop lights. Off-road, or away from brightly lit cities, they're so cyclists can see, and you might well go brighter and steady. Don't you think?

I saw one the other week, he had a bright light on his chest and one on his bike - nearly as big as a motorbike, I would say. I couldn't work out what sort of vehicle it was at first.... But it sure had my attention. No way was I going to miss him and step out in front of him.

I wanted to stop him and give him a pat on the back for being so sensible. Obv, I didn't.

We have our fair share of "ninjas" round our way - both on wheels or on foot. Yes, you look really cool in bright light, dressed all in black, but I can't bloody see you in these lights.

Personally, I carry a brightly coloured bag for life with me - gives the cars a fighting chance of seeing me

Good point CHJR. unfortunately when you're in town your little light is competing with a lot of others so making yourself as visibly big as possible does increase the chances of you being seen.

Mipmipmip it's because of this thread you then look out for cyclists, there is a name for this phenomenon

I know the phenomenon you mean Ivy, although I can't remember it's name. Try it with the number 47...

I was the idiot who started this thread so I was already noticing cyclists. Today I was only overtaken (walking - not a REALLY slow driver!) be only one invisible guy, it's normally five or six. Roughly the same number of riders do a definite improvement. I do realise it's a rather small sample size though

Proper bikes don't have bells on them!

Fuck that. Anything conveyance capable of sharing space with pedestrians and going faster than walking speed should be able to indicate its presence. Buy a bell- I've always fitted them on my bikes.

But the hi-vis and lights are more important at this time of the year.

I switched to a high viz back pack last year and it means I don't have to think about the colour of my clothing. Very handy.

There must be a market in high viz helmets. I bought a lovely orla kiely helmet in halfords earlier this year. It must be possible for someone to design a fluorescent helmet that is trendy.

One of the issues with lights is that they can be v expensive. This winter a 400 watt rechargable front light set me back £57. Worth it - but not cheap.

I don't know how anyone can argue that making sure you're visible when on the road is a bad thing. Of course drivers need to take care and there are twats that don't but it doesn't mean that cyclists don't have a responsibility to be visible too. Car drivers who don't use lights appropriately also piss me off (people in silver cars in heavy rain on the motorway who don't put their lights on so are basically invisible!) I will still do my best not to hit them but they are idiots as well for not being visible.

Anything conveyance capable of sharing space with pedestrians and going faster than walking speed should be able to indicate its presence. Buy a bell- I've always fitted them on my bikes

As I said above, as a pedestrian I find bells really rude. They scream "get out of my way becuase I'm a MAMIL and more important than you".

Someone told me off a couple of weeks ago for not having a bell but I really don't like them and as a cyclist am quite happy to say "excuse me" rather than belling pedestrians.

However, I would like a horn so that I can make sure drivers have seen me. I was overtaking a bus in London a few months ago and he started to move. I had to scream at him, he did stop for me, but I would have preferred a horn. A bell would be pointless in that scenario.

With regard to bells I walk along a pavement in the middle of a field with my dog. Cyclists use it, technically the shouldn't but I don't blame them - it cuts out a steep hill. The thing is they come at speed behind me. If I know they're there I get the dog out the way (and don't swerve into the middle of the path to avoid puddles!). But because very few alert you I spend my time looking backwards and hoping that they're well enough lit that I can see them. If they let me know with a bell (or horn!) things would be easier all round. Yes, I can see why it's annoying or could be seen as rude but it is safer.

BTW don't assume that just because someone has headphones on they don't know what's happening (unless they're noise cancelling). I have mine at s low enough level that I can hear my dogs foot pads so can definitely hear someone telling me to move! A bell is a more distinctive sound that a voice though - a voice can be seen as someone being on the phone.

Ugghhh....seriously why do all threads on here about cyclists end up with stupidity about forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes or have licenses? (Even ignoring the obvious trollery from WLF46).

OP, YANBU, cyclists who don't make themselves visible are idiots. It doesn't seem to help for some motorists though who don't seem capable of seeing me no matter how much I'm lit up. The main types of cyclist who don't seem to have any lights around here are students are kids. And if I see them I'll ask them nicely to get some lights. The lycra lot (me included) generally have the gear.

I just want yo be clear - this is not intended as an anti cyclist thread. It's an anti idiot one! Which I hoe is the minority.

I have no objections to you during cyclists riding on pavements provided its at a sensible speed or adults accompanying them/with child seats. The key thing in this instance is that they are sensible - most are.

One thing I REALLY don't get is even if you don't Christmas tree yourself why don't you do it yo your kids? I can't help but feel I would be wrapping them in florescent bubble wrap if I could - I'd certainly make sure they were VERY visible. Regardless of whether I think it's the driver's responsibility or not I'd still make sure they had helmet, lights, hi bus and anything else I could think of.

When I was learning to drive I was told "Assume everyone else on the road is an idiot". It seems a good idea here - yes they should spot you but no harm making it easier, right?

Argh! Sorry about the typos