Report into road death investigations makes scathing findings about training, processes and victim support

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Some people really don't help themselves. I left the office late on Friday night - around 8pm - and passed 2 almost invisible cyclists decked head to toe in black. They both had the tiniest least effectual LED type rear lights and one had flashing bands around his leg - neither of which stopped these people blending completely in to the background as we went over a busy bridge.

So you saw them then?

Typical SMIDSY defence.

The report is not about seeing or not seeing unlit cyclists at night, but about the plod and CPS who routinely do not gather evidence or charge drivers who have knocked us down or killed cyclists with the incorrect or lesser offences as they are very weak clueless prosecutors and in any case biased towards the vehicle driver as they are likely drivers themselves thinking "there go I, but for the grace of God". Also jurors are more often than not drivers so more likely to find a defendant not guilty. Then if they do convict a useless incompetent judge gives the killer driver a slap on the wrist and a small fine. It's a national disgrace that the penalties for not paying your income or council tax are far more than for killing some one when at the wheel of a vehicle. Cyclists' lives are cheap. The government doesn't give a stuff about cyclists' safety. The only one in power who ever did was Ken Livingstone and he was ousted by Boris the buffoon.

They blended so well into the background that you managed to get a quite detailed description of them. Amazing

birzzles wrote:

... Around me walkers ... dive in hedges during the day if cars are approaching.

Pedestrians have a right of way, and yielding it in this way should never have to be normal behaviour. It's a consequence of poor driving standards that pedestrians feel they need to do this, not something you can reasonably expect as a motorist.

birzzles wrote:

...
Note that I have had the same issue with invisible cyclists and runners when cycling myself at 10mph.

How watts or lumen is your front light? I'm guessing not enough. With a 1200 lumen light I can see any cyclists / pedestrian for a considerable distance regardless of street lighting or lack of it.

Whilst I agree they're 'absolute bellends'; I certainly don't agree they 'deserves what's coming' or 'if they get clobbered it's their own fault' or they 'can't bleat if someone hits them'.

Perhaps it would have been better if you had just made they point you were attempting to make without the hyperbole.

Even when people recklessly put themselves at risk; they don't 'deserve' to be hit.

It you have a dynamo set, the lights won't be lit when not moving. If you run them down would it still be their fault?

Read racyrich's comment above. Or perhaps the highway code
126
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

atgni wrote:

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

Nope, not a chance. Like I say, I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

I guess the difference is that broken down or parked cars are much bigger than unlit cyclists and still have reflectors in their light clusters. Pedestrians I can't comment on, that hasn't happened to me. But three times I have nearly hit an unlit cyclist riding in dark clothing on an unlit lane. In each case the fact that I was driving at a very moderate speed has saved said cyclist from injury or worse.

Riding without lights makes you so vulnerable it just beggars belief that anyone would even consider doing it. Yet once lit up you become so visible the issue, in my experience, vanishes. I don't think I've ever had a problem in the winter months riding in the dark.

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

Would you go slower on roads you don't 'know'?

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

atgni wrote:

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I don't agree. Think people who are walking (scouts on a hike etc). Think broken down vehicles. You'd have nearly hit them too. I would suggest you're going too fast when driving.

Nope, not a chance. Like I say, I drive the roads I ride - I know how fast I should be going.

I guess the difference is that broken down or parked cars are much bigger than unlit cyclists and still have reflectors in their light clusters. Pedestrians I can't comment on, that hasn't happened to me. But three times I have nearly hit an unlit cyclist riding in dark clothing on an unlit lane. In each case the fact that I was driving at a very moderate speed has saved said cyclist from injury or worse.

Riding without lights makes you so vulnerable it just beggars belief that anyone would even consider doing it. Yet once lit up you become so visible the issue, in my experience, vanishes. I don't think I've ever had a problem in the winter months riding in the dark.

So having driven down the roads before gives you a supernatural ability to know what's there before you see it? I suggest you contact Nick Fury because you're obviously some sort of superman. Or a twat who's going to kill someone at some point.

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

I hope you also a think a driver who is killed as a result of hitting a rather more solid unlit object is also getting what's coming to them. Fallen trees, abandoned vehicles, large animals, etc. In fact pretty much everything a driver really needs to worry about in the dark does not come equipped with nice bright lights. Hence driving so you can stop within the distance you can see to be safe. Radical, I know!

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

I think that any cyclist who rides on the road without lights pretty much deserves what's coming. It's utterly barking. Completely nonsensical.

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now, even though I was going carefully, through unlit lanes. And the reason I drive carefully on such roads? Because I also ride them in the dark, all the time, but I'm lit up like a Christmas tree. The morons who cycle at night on unlit roads in pitch black conditions have absolutely no defence - if they get clobbered it's their own fault.

I don't doubt for one minute that the CPS is disorganised, bureaucratic, chaotic, and inefficient. But they just might be making the correct decision in cases where the driver couldn't see the rider.

So do you not have headlights fitted to your motor car which effectively light up the area in front of you to a safe distance in which you are able to stop?
Perhaps you'd better get a bigger car with more powerful headlights.

Oolon Colluphid wrote:

As a driver I've very nearly hit non-lit-up cyclists three times now.

Having thought about this more; you may have Night blindness, sometimes referred to as nyctalopia or impaired dark adaptation. It is due to a disorder of the cells in the retina that are responsible for vision in dim light.

I can honestly say in over 600,000 driven miles I've never nearly hit (or indeed hit) a non-lit-up cyclist and I have passed a few.

I'd recommend you get an eye test and ask them to test for night blindness and colour blindness while there. I was tested for both as part of an airfield driving test.

Ps I still think you should consider driving slower regardless of the test. Hopefully you continue to avoid hitting them.

This is nonsense if you are driving within the range of your headlights you should still be able to see cyclists / pedestrian and avoid them.

This is nonsense if you are driving within the range of your headlights you should still be able to see cyclists / pedestrian and avoid them.

mattsccm wrote:

am I surprised?
I do see a very small point in lack of visibility. Several time this week alone I have been surprised by cyclist with no lights, dark clothing and riding in the wrong places. If a paranoid cyclist who knows that these people are about and is actively looking can miss them then what hope does some one less alert of interested have.
I for one object strongly to the idea on contributory negligence in many case but if you are riding without lights again , the wrong way up a one way street on the wrong side of the road, then you get what you deserve.
Same with any road user of course.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!??!!!!!!

mattsccm wrote:

I do see a very small point in lack of visibility.

Whilst I agree cyclists should have lights/reflectors at night this isn't what causes people to die. I'm sure someone else will append the link to the report about the number of cases in which the police (who it might be expected to rule against the cyclist more often than not) put down lack of lighting as a cause of a collision - it was very few.

Given that, the main focus (though not the only focus of course) must be on motorised traffic.

How much enforcement of traffic laws helps I can't say. I do however recall a concerted campaign against drink driving when I was a kid (in another country). It was education (TV ads, billboards etc) and quite visible enforcement - some Saturday nights you would see 3 or 4 "police checkpoints" with queues of drivers being pulled over and breathalysed. Not only do the statistics show a big drop in the number of accidents in which alcohol was detected it also appears to have become socially unacceptable to drink drive in most parts of society.