Police claim "nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist" so wear hi-vis...; Swap first class for bike storage?; Simon Cowell: Cycling my most creative time; Cav out of hospital; CS3 counter tops 2m; Pidcock joins Boxing Day CX party + more on the live blog

I think nic conveniently manages to miss the point that even some police (Surrey RPU) are critical of the 'advice' given out.  It really underlines the point that it would appear the one 'set' of people ill-equipped to give out decent advice to cyclists is the police as they generally don't seem to have a clue...and just re-enforce the belief that any RTC is a cyclist's fault, unless proved otherwise (note, a real investigation will only be undertaken in the event that it was a policeman cycling).

nic - you do know that LED collars are lights?  Not hi-viz?

brooksby wrote:

nic - you do know that LED collars are lights?  Not hi-viz?

And not advocated by some lazy police as a panacea to road violence.... 

Sorry,  am I showing my hatred in that statement of fact?....

nicmason wrote:

Plenty of hate the police I see. Wearing light coloured or reflective gear at night is a no brainer for everyone really but I guess some people cant stand it. I see a lot of people walking dogs now where the dog has an LED collar. I guess their civil liberties are being infringed as well. 

at night, light or dark clothing makes little diference.

reflectives help a lot, as do lights

In low light conditions bright colours can help as can lights, reflective not so much

in bright light reflectives do nothing bright or dark clothing does little, light s doa bit.

conclusion - use lights

But drivers should be looking out anyway. What about all the schools that insist pupils wear black (or navy) coats, trousers, bags and scarves? Should drivers not worry about hitting these school children that can't be seen. Or perhaps should they pay a little more attention to what's outside of their box?

wycombewheeler wrote:

....

But drivers should be looking out anyway. What about all the schools that insist pupils wear black (or navy) coats, trousers, bags and scarves? Should drivers not worry about hitting these school children that can't be seen. Or perhaps should they pay a little more attention to what's outside of their box?

Don't get me started! (too late, she cried,as aloft she waved her wooden leg)...

The cubs' school stipulates dark uniform (well, okay) but also dark coats and bags.....

Ok from my driving experience even light clothing is better than dark though not as good as hi vis. headlights pick that out. Lghts are not a panacea . One persons light  is another persons barely visible red ember hanging in some random spot on the back of a bike or person. 

nicmason wrote:

Plenty of hate the police I see. Wearing light coloured or reflective gear at night is a no brainer for everyone really but I guess some people cant stand it. I see a lot of people walking dogs now where the dog has an LED collar. I guess their civil liberties are being infringed as well. 

You are mistaking being critical of the police, with hatred of the police.  Hi viz has its uses but they are not the panacea that some police forces think they are.  What it does is detract from the real problem which is that lax driving skills have been accepted as the norm, where a driver has to provide an excuse, any excuse as a method to absolve them from looking properly 

• They were in a blind spot - aka the driver never looked properly
• The sun was in my eyes - aka I wasn't driving according to the conditions
• They never had lights/hi viz on in the middle of the day - aka the driver couldn't be bothered to pay attention
• I just never saw them - aka the driver couldn't be bothered to look in the first place
• They came out of nowhere - aka the driver never looked
• Sorry mate I didn't see you - aka the driver wasn't looking for a cyclist

Imagine a defendant in court being charged with a stabbing.... do you think they would get away with a defence of "If my victim had been wearing a stab proof vest they wouldn't have been so badly injured therefore its their fault not mine"?  No of course not.

TriTaxMan wrote:

What it does is detract from the real problem which is that lax driving skills have been accepted as the norm, where a driver has to provide an excuse, any excuse as a method to absolve them from looking properly 

• They were in a blind spot - aka the driver never looked properly
• The sun was in my eyes - aka I wasn't driving according to the conditions
• They never had lights/hi viz on in the middle of the day - aka the driver couldn't be bothered to pay attention
• I just never saw them - aka the driver couldn't be bothered to look in the first place
• They came out of nowhere - aka the driver never looked
• Sorry mate I didn't see you - aka the driver wasn't looking for a cyclist

In as wide an area around my home as I consider my stomping ground, there is one, mile-long section in which it is genuinely hard to spot unlit pedestrians and cyclists at night.  It is a semi-rural,  wide, single-lane (in each direction) carriageway, lined with trees and a footway on one side, and LED street lamps which fight the tree canopy for space.  It has a 40mph limit in place.  In dark, heavy rain conditions, the lighting creates a dismal, dappling effect with sharply contrasted shadows on the margin of the carriageway and the footway.  It is very difficult to be sure that there is nothing there using normal (halogen) headlamps.

I've found a solution, though.

Do I complain that all road users without high viz are foolish?  No.

Do I switch on my fog lamps and mainbeam to dazzle everybody but at least I can see, right?  No.

I adjust the pitch wheel of my headlamps up a bit, and I slow down until I can be sure of my path ahead within my ability to stop.  (I also move further right, because on this particular road, that's an option.)

Everywhere else, it doesn't matter how dark or wet it gets, I can see people.  It helps, perhaps, that I am looking for them. I anticipate them. They may not be there, but I am ready for them. It's not that difficult, but you have to decide to do it.

Just because they limit is 40 doesn't mean you should drive that fast if the conditions indicate otherwise.

"and I slow down until I can be sure of my path ahead within my ability to stop."

You mean, you sensibly drive to the conditions? Gosh, imagine if all drivers who sat and passed a test to grant them the privilege of driving a 2 ton metal box thought the same way? Think of the lives saved.

So Nic, advocating cycling at night only in light coloured/ reflective gear? And no lights, (even though the dogs you mentioned have lights and not Hi-Viz reflective material). 

Anyway, according to one of your own trolls who you normally support, a Police Sgt offering advice to someone should get off their, <checks notes> "donut eating fat arse" and go out and stop crimes instead. I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned that to these Police, just hoping that they are not blaming a cyclist no matter what they are wearing for potentially being killed and maybe had added a warning to drivers that they still need to be vigilant anyway whilst on the roads. If they had offered him lights though, I don't think it would have been as controversial, especially if getting dark.

"Anyway, according to one of your own trolls who you normally support" my own trolls ! if only.

nicmason wrote:

Wearing light coloured or reflective gear at night is a no brainer for everyone really but I guess some people cant stand it. I see a lot of people walking dogs now where the dog has an LED collar. I guess their civil liberties are being infringed as well.

I'm confused. When did dogs get civil liberties, and are we now expected to wear light coloured dog collars when we cycle?

Sriracha wrote:

....I'm confused. When did dogs get civil liberties, and are we now expected to wear light coloured dog collars when we cycle?

Oh that's good... just toooo good

Sriracha wrote:

When did dogs get civil liberties

It's still a bone of contention.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

Thanks for the link. Sorry he was not wearing hi vis but he had lights.

Yes, there was another case in Wales where a councillor (I think) was killed by a driver who's defence was the high vis yellow against the backlit trees made him invisible.

https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019

https://road.cc/content/news/driver-convicted-cyclists-death-277111

cbrndc wrote:

Remember Micheal Mason? Killed in Regent Street central London whilst wearing hi vis and with lights on his bike. The driver was not charge with any offence; the police agued that the hi vis and lights contributed to his not being seen against the brightly lit background of the shops. RIP Micheal

Worth noting that Mick was not sporting happy colours (the police made a song and dance about this), BUT was adequately and legally lit.

In short, he did nothing wrong.

The driver (Gail Purcell) hit him from behind, so on a brightly lit road with his lights and her headlights, he would have been perfectly visible for some time.

Purcell failed to see him (her admission...), in spite of Mick being directly in front of her. The dent in her car was towards the right of teh bonnet, in front of the driving position.

She hit him so hard that 7 witnesses stated that they saw him in the air.

Purcell stood by her story of "I don't understand what happened" throughout the Police investigation and subsequent private prosecution.

Captain Badger wrote:

Purcell stood by her story of "I don't understand what happened" throughout the Police investigation and subsequent private prosecution.

She thought it was far more likely that a sack of potatoes had fallen from the sky than that she had driven into/over the cyclist in front of her, IIRC... 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938

I'm sure I remember a case where a lollipop lady was killed and the same thing was said

Because they're ugly. Because they don't work. Because it will then be used against us if we don't. Because this shit never stops anyway.

marmotte27 wrote:

Because it will then be used against us if we don't.

Lack of hiviz can be used against us anyway - see Highway Code Rule 59. 

I'd better get 2 coats then.

hirsute wrote:

I'd better get 2 coats then.

Shouldn't be necessary.

mdavidford wrote:

hirsute wrote:

I'd better get 2 coats then.

Shouldn't be necessary.

surely that's no good, he wants to use it outside. No cars in the velodrome.