- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
mike hall kinesis5.jpgMike Hall inquest hears conflicting evidence over ultracyclist’s visibility - campaigners raise concerns over focus on the issue
The inquest into the death in March last year of British ultracyclist Mike Hall while riding near Canberra in the Indian Pacific Wheel Race has heard conflicting evidence over how visible he would have been to motorists.
The emphasis on his visibility has been criticised by cycling campaigners, who believe it shifts the focus away from any actions on the part of the driver involved, and who have also raised concerns over some of the evidence presented.
The 35-year-old was killed when he was hit from behind by a car driven by 19-year-old Shegu Bobb on the Monaro Highway at around 6.20am on 31 March last year.
Hall had been lying second in the 5,500km race from Fremantle to Sydney when the crash happened.
The motorist, who initially believed he had hit a kangaroo, told police that he had been distracted moments beforehand by a van parked at a closed petrol station.
However, the focus of much of the inquest to date relates to how visible he may have been to other road users.
On today’s second day of the inquest, there was conflicting evidence from drivers about how easy it was to see him according to a report by Australian Associated Press published in the Guardian.
One motorist, Jennifer Perrin, who was driving to work in Canberra and had her headlights on low beam, said that she could see reflective strips on his legs and arms.
She added that it was the first time in more than three decades she could remember seeing a cyclist on the road in question.
“It was very odd to see a cyclist on the road and particularly at that time of day,” she said.
Two others drivers, however, said they had almost hit Hall. Joseph Spulak, insisted the cyclist “came out of nowhere,” and said he didn’t seem to have reflective clothing or strips, while truck driver Anthony Shoard claimed Hall “cut it very fine,” when making a turn at an intersection at around 4.30am that morning.
But in its blog post covering the opening day of the inquest, Australia’s national cycle campaign group, Cycle, raises a number of concerns about the evidence being examined.
Among other things, the organisation, which has observers at the inquest, points out that Hall’s clothing was not retained and therefore is not available for evidential purposes – even though has been a focus of the proceedings to date.
It also highlighted what it sees as failings in a police video reconstruction of how visible they believe Hall’s bike would have been, and provided a video filmed as he approached Cooma the night before he was killed that shows he would have been clearly visible to motorists.
Yesterday, the Guardian came under heavy criticism after publishing an Australian Associated Press article regarding the opening day of the inquest under the headline, ‘British ultra-endurance cyclist Mike Hall in 'Hunger Games on wheels' when killed.’
Although the newspaper subsequently changed the headline to ‘British ultra-endurance cyclist killed almost instantly, inquest told’ the URL remains unchanged, and a number of outlets retain the reference to the film and book The Hunger Games in their headlines.
The allusion to the Indian Pacific Wheel Race as being “almost like the Hunger Games on wheels” was first drawn by race founder Jesse Carlsson ahead of last year’s event in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald as he attempted to explain the demands that ultracycling places on racers.
In the book and movie, set in a dystopian future, each of the 12 districts of the country of Panem selects two contestants aged between 12 and 18 – one male, one female – to fight to the death in the annual Hunger Games, with the last person left alive declared the winner.
The analogy by Carlsson – himself an ultracyclist who was runner up to Hall in the 2013 Tour Divide and won the 2015 Trans Am Bicycle Race – was how riders are required to be self-sufficient on arduous routes, typically getting by on very little sleep as they push their bodies to the limit.
"It's almost like The Hunger Games on wheels," he said. "Riding is only one part of the puzzle. The logistics of it – staying safe and making sure you're well fed and well-watered – are critical. It doesn't matter how fast you are, if you run out of food, you're not going anywhere."
It's regrettable now that his thruway remark ahead of last year’s race is now being used in headlines regarding the death of a man who was a driving force in establishing unsupported ultracyling races as a sport, and which can be interpreted as shifting thee responsibility for their own safety onto the riders who participate in them and away from the motorists with whom they share the roads.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 6 min 9 sec ago
A few years back I had a police officer stop me (they were looking for a recently stolen bike and I had one from the same manufacturer, although...
- chrisonabike 6 min 35 sec ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- wtjs 13 min 3 sec ago
YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE! WHAT FOR?!...
- mdavidford 44 min 35 sec ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 9 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 1 hour 17 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- mdavidford 1 hour 19 min ago
...and a square of faux sheepskin for the back of your saddle.
- Rapha Nadal 1 hour 51 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
26 comments
I'd argue that the coroner in this incidence has potentially done more than many could have. They have pointed out the failings of the police and that the law is wrong.
I found some papers online which might bring some actual evidence to the party. Not all support the idea that hi-viz, lights and reflectives reduce accident rates for cyclists, though the larger scale studies would seem to support that and there would seem to be a general acknowledgement that cyclists can effectively increase the average distance at which drivers become aware of them by use of visibility aids A certain percentage of drivers will close pass regardless. Personally I might be less concerned by these as their intention is to intimidate and frighten, they are probably well aware of your presence.
My take on this is that I usually wear clothing when cycling so there is no penalty as such to wearing something that is conspicuous in the environment. As a driver I know for sure that reflectives and particularly those that involve motion get my attention a long way down the road. To paraphrase another contributor ‘Travel at a speed at which you can safely stop in the distance you can see’. This is great advice and even if this was the base standard it would be an improvement. However it should be considered the 0% safety margin option. As a driver I want to be aware of cyclists and pedestrians as far out as possible, not so that I can increase my speed, but so I can plan ahead and take account of their presence in the general flow of traffic and build on that 0% safety margin of an emergency stop situation.
Thought experiment: Dozy Twonk is driving down a dark country road at 40mph, glancing up every 5 seconds from the text he is reading. An unlit, un-reflective ninja cyclist is revealed at the range of his headlights 10 seconds from point of impact, a lit cyclist with biometric reflectives is effectively visible at up to 3 times the distance. Which one is Dozy going to have more opportunities to see?
The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
Highlights
The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457513004636
Highlights
Lighting for cycling in the UK—A review
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1477153515609391
Abstract
While UK governments have recently sought to increase cycling activity, it remains a minority interest. One reason for this is the perceived danger of cycling on roads filled with traffic. There is statistical evidence to support this perception; for equal exposure, cyclists are more likely to be seriously injured than either drivers or pedestrians. Lighting has a role to play in reducing the hazards of cycling by enhancing the visibility and conspicuity of cyclists. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that the current lighting regulations and recommendations for cycling and cyclists are the best that can be achieved or are even adequate for these purposes. A number of actions are suggested that should enable lighting’s contribution to the safety of cyclists to be realized.
The effect of an italian nationwide mandatory visibility aids law for cyclists
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045
Highlights
Detecting Cyclists at Night: visibility effects of reflector placement and different lighting conditions
http://his.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1179424/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Abstract
The use of visual aids can increase the ability of drivers to detect cyclists at night and reduce the seriousness of injuries if a crash occurs [1]. The use of reflectors placed on critical parts of the human body have been shown to increase cyclist conspicuity at night [2]. Drivers detect cyclists with reflective clothing that enhances the movement of the human body (biomotion) at considerably longer distances than a reflective vest, which is a very often used piece of clothing by cyclists who want to be detected in darkness. Recent research [3] has also shown that driver eye movements are quicker to fixate on cyclists who are wearing the biomotion reflector clothing than the reflective vest.
Study finds that wearing hi-vis can INCREASE chance of collision while cycling
https://road.cc/content/news/232944-study-finds-wearing-hi-vis-can-incre...
Study suggests riders who believe they are more conspicuous may adopt more exposed positions on the road.
The researchers did go on to point out that the results “should be treated with caution” however, as they were based on only 76 accidents.
Sorry, could not find link to original paper or abstract.
What I find frustrating is this...
The tactics defence lawyers used are rarely new or surprising or unanswerable. However they do seem to be highly effective. Why therefore, haven't prosecutors come up with equally effective retorts to the usual lines of defence trotted out?
All this talk of 'was he visible though' when there is evidence that Mike was meeting his legal obligations to make himself seen should be called out for the bullshit that it is.
Not really related to visibility, nor, so far as I am aware is there any suggestion that any fatigue on Hall's part was in any way causative....
But, I do wonder if there is a real issue here about running these ultra endurance events on public roads.
The very significant impairment caused by tiredness and sleep deprivation is well known. Some studies have suggested that a driver who has slept for only 4 hours in the past 24, may be more than 10 times more likely to crash than a driver with 7 hours sleep.
The Ride Accross America has been used to study the hallucinatory effects of sleep deprivation.
Is there not a real danger that the demands of ultra endurance events which mean that cyclists ride in advanced states of sleep deprivation mean that lives are being put at risk?
Mr Hall was run into from behind. I'd be more concerned about the sleep deprivation of the bloke driving the ute...
Whilst i'm trying to not sound like i support the driver the situation regarding his lights is not the important thing.
Do people check their vehicles lights everytime they go out in the vehicle against a prescribed limit ? I reckon not and even those lights checked and passed for an mot can deteriate within hours of said mot.
Also the video of Mr Hall the night before proves absolutely nothing.
However the decision to not prosecute the driver seems strange when he said he was distracted by a stationery van at a closed petrol station. What on earth has that got to do with anything.
More likely he was still half asleep and wasn;t watcvhing properly.
it is an important thing because the driver is legally responsible for the roadworthiness of his car. It makes no difference if you check the roadworthiness frequently or not, if its lack of roadworthiness contributes to an accident, you are responsible.
I think the vidoe proves that Mike was fully lit as according to any road regulations,
https://road.cc/content/tech-news/219030-bike-check-mike-halls-kinesis-g...
his bike was fitted with an SP hub and Dynamo lights so unless hed had a catastopic failure of the hub in the ntermdiate hours he will have still been lit,
and his shorts were hemmed with reflectives, https://pedaled.com/products/natsu-summer-bibshort
i'd say his kit was all 'to code' and the coronor would only need to look up what kit he was carrying to see what would have been included.. 2 drivers who nearly hit him more than likely also not paying any real intention when the road is not a cycle highway vs one who out of surprise actually took note.
the coronor's ineptitude and eagerness to blame the victim is blood boiling!
If that video is representative of how he looked that night, then why are we even talking about reflectives and bright colours when there's a big red light that would be shining right at the driver. Such a sad event.
Exactly. This is obvious, and Road CC should have covered this point in the article.
The standard line of questioning from lawyers in all cases of cyclists hit in poor light conditions always focusses on whether the cyclist was brightly lit, wearing reflective clothing and bright coloured clothing. It's a standard legal strategy to move the focus from driving standards, to the victim blaming.
It's part of the reason that I always wear bright clothing when I'm cycling. I don't want my family to have to go through this bullshit, whilst someone who's driving is so poor that they manage to drive straight into another human being on a straight road gets off by introducing a seed of doubt into the jury's mind.
You might be right but you'll still be dead, hi-vis (extra bright/mulitple) lights etc improves nothing, it just shows that you agree with the set of rules being forced upon you and the shift in responsibility, you might as well tug your forlock whilst bowing and scraping and mumbling thanks to be still allowed on the road at all.
That's so inflammatory it's ridiculous. There is no set of rules being forced upon us.
Do you think car drivers moan about daytime running lights too ?
Out in the real world - most drivers are sensible. They don't want to hit anyone.
Some drivers are dopey and aren't paying attention. Impossible to know what % this is - but we see them all of the time.
Some drivers just are in a world of their own. They manage to crash into trees and ambulances. It's just luck that it's not you that they hit.
I'm happy to have bright lights on. I have them for night riding - so its no extra cost to me.
I have to wear clothes too - now I could do the Rapha dark and moody to look photogenic - or I could wear a bit of colour. I'm going with colour. Again - costs nothing.
I've ridden past my training partner on a dull winters day. He was on the other side of the road. All in black. We ride in opposite directions and one of us turns round when we meet up. I didn't see him at all. It took him ages to catch up. The next week he had a bright gilet on.
Nobody's saying that daytime lights or a bright jacket make you invulnerable. but if they make you a bit more visible - that's got to help.
How far do you take this arms-race though? At what point is it just collusion with victim-blaming and responsibility-shifting? It hasn't necessarily 'got to help' because drivers may just reduce the attention they pay accordingly. It also makes cycling look more dangerous, more undignified, and more of a faff, and thus discourages people from doing it and thus reduces the safety-in-numbers effect, so overall it might not help you as much as you think.
You might think daytime lights help for you - that's your decison. But don't pretend there's no downside or that others are wrong for drawing the line before that point. Any argument you use against those who don't use as much safety gear as you do can potentially later be used against you by someone prepared to go to even greater lengths.
Seems to me that people wind each other up over this. Those most angry about the failure to provide safe routes or to hold motorists to account will react angrily to high-viz/lights pushing and in turn those who use that stuff will get defensive and end up straying into victim-blaming.
It should all just be left to individuals to decide how they want to personally cope with an imperfect situation.
What I believe is needed, is more attention on what is legally required and what is nice to have.
if something is not legally required, than it should not be used as a mitigating factor in cases.
All this, but he wasn't wearing a helmet, hi-viz, didn't have insurance, pay road tax, pass a test, have a number plate, wear a neon 'I'm a cyclist wanker' sign n his head, bullshit has to be called out.
if the non-compliance with the above is actually a factor and and lives are being ruined / ended because of these, than the laws need to be changed to make them legal requirements. There needs to be far clearer direction on this.
Why have people commented to me on the use of reflective ankle strips and how they spot things easier due to the movement?
There was also an article in roadcc about people wearing coloured leggings and that was easier to see too.
The people who commented may not be the people who are most likely to kill you, though.
Not sure why you are being defensive about your choice to use the things. I'm fine with a bit of reflective material, myself (unlike day-glo high-viz I actually like the aesthetics of it - my bike is covered in it) but people are annoyed becuase it doesn't address the real problem - your life constantly being at the mercy of whether others can be bothered to pay appropriate attention.
And it won't make much difference to whether your future killer is held to account or not - they will _always_ find some excuse no matter what you do.
oh dear, so you have evidence conspicuousy to some people, those who are actually looking and reacting but not to ALL people equals greater safety.
Please present your evidence to support your notion.
Sadly the reality is that hi-vis and overtly bright lights do diddly squat to increase safety, you know this already or are you ignorant of the facts?
Despite the massive push for helmets and hi-vis we've seen a reduction in safety terms that outstrips any increase in cycling numbers (actually fewer people are cycling than in the past just going a little bit further on average as per the latest stats) and certainly that of pedestrians. That's also despite more segregated infra, cars getting safer, better brakes and tyres on bikes.
C'mon, lets see the evidence to support your theory.
Hang on, what your saying is that lights and hi vis / reflective clothing make absolutely no difference ?
So you would cycle along without lights and not wear something that reflects car lights / street lighting because it wouldn't stop a car / vehicle hitting you. In that case why have street lighitng, why not remove lights from cars if lighting up in the dark makes no difference.
Whilst cycling in the dark i would be lit up like a christmas tree as i would rather be seen that not.
Surely the question should be, "was he compliant with the visibility standards expected of a cyclist riding at night on Australian roads?". If he was, it the driver should be responsible for paying sufficient attention to avoid an accident.
Those standards may not be enough to be seen all circumstances but it is pernicious bordering on victim-blaming to put a cyclist at fault when they have complied with the legal standards.
If the standards are not enough to be seen then the inquiry could reccomend the standards be improved. ie. driver & cyclist not at fault, better road safety standards required.
There's an obvious solution to all of this...
We keep being told that drivers don't kill people, cars kill people. Now a car doesn't have any human rights; a car isn't late for work, doesn't have an emotional desire to be in front of the car ahead, they don't even watch the F1.
Ban the car.
But you should drive at a speed so that you can stop in the distance that you can see. A dodgy headlight on the car just reduces that distance and therefore the speed. It's only a reason for an accident if the driver is driving dangerously.
Yet, the very adjective "roadworthy" implies that there is a minimum standard that all cars have to abide by.
It is bizarre that there is lengthy discussion of how visible Mike Hall was (which is not something that is defined beyond having lights and reflectors) whereas driving a car that should not be on the roads, is not even mentioned.
Remember the Rhyl CC tragedy ? Four cyclists killed by a driver with bald tyres on his car on an icy day. He didn't even go to jail.
Also worth noting that the car seemed to not be using bright enough lights:
I would imagine that not having roadworthy headlights would affect the visibility of a cyclist in the dark.