Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing

stumps wrote:

But people on here would rather we stood at junctions stopping people who drive into the cycling box or are on their mobiles, but yes we do that as well when we get a chance...

all the other things mentioned are more important than that, but it seems there is often time to stop cyclists and advise them to wear the questionable high vis, studies have shown no difference in closes pass whether wearing bright or dark clothing, so the benefit is questionable. Strangely wearing 'police' or even 'polite' on a vest does result in fewer close passes, suggesting drivers are well aware of what they should do, but simply do what they think can get away with.

If there is time to 'advise' on hi vis then there is time to enforce driving laws

iso2000 wrote:

"In 2013, a University of Bath and Brunel University study found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close.

when discussing cycle safety, cyclists seem obsessed with being seen from behind. I don't understand this, surely you are far more likely to be injured by a car pulling out in front of you. Does anyone have a breakdown by type of accident?

you are far more likely to be hit from behind or suffer a close miss from behind than by a driver turning across you...

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

Shades wrote:

Let's introduce Rapha High-Viz clothing into the debate and send the forum into the stratosphere!

If they start giving out free rapha hi vis, tell me where, I'll be straight round

wknight wrote:

No it doesn't stop someone making a close call, or pulling out in front of you, that will happen. But it does make you more visible and it definitely helps, especially in built up areas. Unfortunately statistics cannot prove that because no incident results.

The one study I seem to remember came to the conclusion that Hi-Viz is a waste of time, unless it can be mistaken for police, why? Because drivers simply don't give a shit. It doesn't actually matter when they see you they will overtake in the same manner regardless unless they believe that the overtake will have repercussions.

Solution is simply enforcement.

Glyn wrote:

These campaigns are missing the point completely and just reinforcing to motorists that they have an excuse if they hit a cyclist. SMIDSY but hey its your fault, where's your hi viz jacket?

I think there is too much emphasis on hi viz and helmets and the like. Lights perhaps should be on at all times? LED lights now are as cheap as chips and stay bright for ages. But the biggest danger to cyclists are the motorists who on the whole are plain unaccepting that cyclists even exist let alone are out on the roads. We are hammered if we listen to music when we ride and we are legally forced to ride around with a bell! When has anyone avoided a crash with a car by ringing a bell? When has anyone avoided a crash with a car because he did not hear it coming? Car drivers on the other hand ride around in sound proofed boxes with multi speaker sound systems. The onus needs to be on getting the motorists to accept that bikes are there and accept that they are vulnerable and give them the space they deserve. Stupid police campaigns focussing in on minutiae like this one are only there to boost the promotion prospects of the organiser "Look what I did!" What about pedestrians crossing the road, are they asked to wear a helmet and an HV vest?

Hi Viz and helmets are different matters. I always make myself as visible as possible. Good lights even in the day and high viz (not necessarily flouro) definitely reflective at night. I don't wear a helmet. They're not very helpful on the road.

When the article says the police Stopped cyclists it implies that they were detained under some special power. What actually happened was that the police went and spoke to some cyclists to point out that they weren't very visible. My latest SMIDSY was a van that pulled out in front of me despote flashing frot lights and high Viz. The driver immediately out and massively apologetic was in the local road club. It proved to me that in many cases the driver is not being malicious or anti cyclist. It's just a fact that cyclists' visible profile on the road size and speed is not as large as a lot of other vehicles. Ok you can sit on your rights not to do anything about that and you can take faux offence at the police for pointing that out to you and you can lambast motorists for not being the most arttentive at all times.

Or you can do what you can to shift the odds a bit in your favour on the smidsy.

There's also a lot of bad philosophy flying about. I could easily say that hi viz and expensive flashing lights don't work becaus that van driver / cyclists still didn't see me . But you can never actually show or prove the number of times that it did work and the potential smidsy never happened.

Back to what is high viz. It doesn't have to be the tabard or the yellow flouro just about thinking whether this dark coloured jersey I am about to put on the best thing I could wear on this dim day or is it more like camouflage.

I agree with you on lights. I have some very good ones. I defy anyone not to see them from the rear. (cyclist van driver not withstanding) I'd say from the front as well. But I doubt the cops would have wanted a chat with me . It's more likely that the chat was with the unlit (no need for lights in the day!!) people wearing dark clothing.

you don't have to take the police advice if you don't want to. You don't have to put window locks on your house or make sure the shed is padlocked. You can ignore them. So likewise you don't need to get on their case just for offering some advice to vulnerable homeowners or vulnerable road users.

There's no point going on about smidsys if you're not even trying

Reggie Plate wrote:

Following on from my earlier post:

Reggie Plate wrote:

"My bright reflective clothing and flashing rear light didn't stop the idiot driver who overtook me yesterday, with only inches to spare, who then immediately turned left across my path - while still partially alongside me. Emergency braking saved me - just. My very vocal response is unrepeatable here. Such breathtaking stupidity by car, van and bus drivers is now becoming a daily feature of my rides."

I forgot to menton it was daylight at the time. The driver saw me, but it obviously didn't enter her head that it was dangerous to pass so closely, or to overtake me on a left hand bend just before she wanted to turn left into a side road.

Telling cyclists to wear reflective clothing and helmets is all well and good, but it's not tackling the root cause of the problem. Drivers are generally ignorant of the dangers and something needs to be done to make them more aware. Until that happens, more cyclists will be injured or killed.

This is essentially the issue....99% of near misses are just motorists not caring, paying attention or just generally with an attitude of cant be bothered waiting. Until an example is made motorists will continue with this approach.

ChairRDRF wrote:

mrmo wrote:

on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.

Exactly!

If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn't do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.

The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket's responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don't know who to believe or what to do.

700c wrote:

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

And yet, who is going to take charge and break this cycle of blaming the others?
Certainly not Evesham Police by handing out hiviz jackets to cyclists....

Paul_C wrote:

iso2000 wrote:

"In 2013, a University of Bath and . I don't understand this, surely you are far more likely to be injured by a car pulling out in front of you. Does anyone have a breakdown by type of accident?

you are far more likely to be hit from behind or suffer a close miss from behind than by a driver turning across you...

Source?

oozaveared wrote:

When the article says the police Stopped cyclists it implies that they were detained under some special power. What actually happened was that the police went and spoke to some cyclists to point out that they weren't very visible.

I'd find that a mite irritating, not least because it would be in the context of the millions of times I've seen the police ignoring dangerous or illegal behaviour by motorists.

Its a bit disingenuous to make a distinction between 'detained' and 'asked to stop so the cop could have a word with you'. Everyone knows full well what hassle a police officer can put you through if they decide you aren't being co-operative, so who is going to ignore such a 'request' and whizz off? Whether its a 'special power' or not is irrelevant, if a cop asks to speak to you you are going to co-operate (and force yourself to be polite).

LinusLarrabee wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

mrmo wrote:

on the burglary point, there is evidence that the police try and catch burglars, there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.

Exactly!

If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn't do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.

The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket's responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don't know who to believe or what to do.

Drivel. First you lie about your opponent's stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn't remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?

I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?

On the contrary the end result is likely to be to (a) dissuade people from cycling at all, and (b) encourage drivers in thinking its everyone else's responsibility to stay out of their way. The end result is likely to be more mortality, not less (not least via heart disease and pollution effects).

In reality, this one stunt is quite a minor one, and not really worth getting so worked up about (and I think asking cyclists to use lights is fair, as that is actually the law) but what irritates me is your unthinking assumption that it must be a good thing and no-one can have doubts about it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Drivel. First you lie about your opponent's stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn't remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?

From a document on the RDRF website:

Quote:

Dr. Robert Davis explained the basic principles of Road Danger Reduction (RDR) as against traditional “road safety” (RS), which we see as part of the problem of road danger.

It says it right there. RDRF view traditional road safety advice - which includes advising cyclists how to help themselves (helmets, hi-vis etc.)- as part of the problem. You also have the good Dr's own comments on this very article to go along with. Not to mention the RDRF website which is full of similar comical nonsense.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Drivel. First you lie about your opponent's stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn't remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?

From a document on the RDRF website:

Quote:

Dr. Robert Davis explained the basic principles of Road Danger Reduction (RDR) as against traditional “road safety” (RS), which we see as part of the problem of road danger.

It says it right there. RDRF view traditional road safety advice - which includes advising cyclists how to help themselves (helmets, hi-vis etc.)- as part of the problem. You also have the good Dr's own comments on this very article to go along with. Not to mention the RDRF website which is full of similar comical nonsense.

You seem unable to let go of your straw man or to understand an obvious logical distinction. RDRF has a point - traditional 'road safety' does at least as much harm as good, because it promotes the view that its everyone else's job to avoid being hit by motorists.

But you said that RDRF opposes cyclists wearing helmets, high viz etc. Not that they oppose nagging or harrasing cyclists to wear them. Those are two different things.

Now its possible they see voluntary high-viz wearing as setting a bad precedent in establishing a norm - in much the same way some feminists don't like Muslim women voluntarily choosing to cover up - but that's very much a secondary issue, and not one I'd go along with myself.

Well, you edited your reply whilst I was responding and added this:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?

I've never advocated harassing cyclists or said it's their own fault if they are killed. But what you've eluded to here really is the cruz of the anti-movement isn't it? This irrational belief that we cyclists are being harassed, prejudiced and discriminated against whenever people are trying to help. The result of which is, without any actual evidence, is to espouse crazy meritless theories and hypothetical scenarios that serve this warped agenda.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Well, you edited your reply whilst I was responding and added this:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?

I've never advocated harassing cyclists or said it's their own fault if they are killed. But what you've eluded to here really is the cruz of the anti-movement isn't it? This irrational belief that we cyclists are being harassed, prejudiced and discriminated against whenever people are trying to help. The result of which is, without any actual evidence, is to espouse crazy meritless theories and hypothetical scenarios that serve this warped agenda.

Quite. Having returned to the comments on this it's still evident that there are a few on here who really seem to have a persecution complex which blinds objectivity. It seems impossible for them to divorce one issue (police providing road safety advice) from another (the requirement for drivers to drive safely especially around vulnerable road users). The two are not incompatible.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Well, you edited your reply whilst I was responding and added this:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?

I've never advocated harassing cyclists or said it's their own fault if they are killed. But what you've eluded to here really is the cruz of the anti-movement isn't it? This irrational belief that we cyclists are being harassed, prejudiced and discriminated against whenever people are trying to help. The result of which is, without any actual evidence, is to espouse crazy meritless theories and hypothetical scenarios that serve this warped agenda.

You come across as a shell-shocked person repeating the mantra "it's ok, there's no issue" over and over as psychological self defense.

Else, you're clearly not riding on the same roads as we are. Or seeing the same court cases, or lack of, as we do.

700c wrote:

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

Do most cyclists though? Your evidence? and what your saying is the same problem, there is very little enforcement of traffic offences regardless. But if you want to save lives and make the environment better, where would you start? with the c2% of journeys that are by bike or the much larger percentage that are by car?

mrmo wrote:

700c wrote:

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

Do most cyclists though? Your evidence? and what your saying is the same problem, there is very little enforcement of traffic offences regardless. But if you want to save lives and make the environment better, where would you start? with the c2% of journeys that are by bike or the much larger percentage that are by car?

I was simply answering your question - Yes I can imagine a crime where law breaking would be so tolerated, and thats the example I gave. All sorts of road users break traffic laws. I'm not saying 'most' cyclists break this particular law

Nethertheless your points about traffic enforcement and the environment are valid too; I quite agree.

700c wrote:

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

The argument of cyclist always running red lights assumes motorists are whiter than white and never speed, follow the highway code, dont enter bus lanes, always stop at red lights etc etc. its bullshit. Just as many motorists breaking the law as cyclists on any given day.

700c wrote:

mrmo wrote:

most drivers break the law and most drivers get away with it, and even if they do get caught they don't get banned. Can you imagine any other crime where this would be so tolerated?

Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

Many cyclists do break those laws, its true. But motorists do so at least the same rate. Just go to a major junction and watch the failed amber-gamblers. It would indeed be good if those laws were to actually be enforced on all.

Its true though that the only law cyclists seem to break far more than motorists is the one about having lights after dark. I don't often see cars without lights on (though it does happen).

andyp wrote:

'there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.'

That is, of course, absolute shite.

Feel free to continue living in your delusional bubble. But you could try reading the news occasionally.

stumps wrote:

Cant win no matter what they try to do. Perhaps try doing our job will give people an insight into what we do have to deal with, such as the young 16 year old asylum seeker sold into prostitution by unscrupulous blokes or the 6 year old kid running through the snow last night because mammy was being filled in by her boyfriend again or sitting in the road for 50 mins holding a blokes head waiting for an ambulance after a cyclist decided to go for a gap that wasn't there or better still sitting with an old lady trying to comfort her after some bloke pretended to be from the gas board and stole her jewellery. The list goes on and on and on.

But people on here would rather we stood at junctions stopping people who drive into the cycling box or are on their mobiles, but yes we do that as well when we get a chance...

Most of us appreciate all of the above good work that the police do.

There is enough work to be done enforcing real laws etc however that means coppers should not be playing fashion police and stopping people on bikes cos they're not dressed like a Village People refugee.

I don't expect the police to be stood on corners handing out hivis or stopping motorists in the (pointless) ASL. I would like them to target the drivers fiddling with phones whilst in traffic, queued or otherwise. Also target the speeding drivers. We don't make enough use of cameras. I would replace every flashing speed sign with a cam or at least put one alongside.

Hivis is at best a distraction from the real issue which is inconsiderate/distracted or dangerous driving. Anti social driving is a big thing in the UK, and doesn't just affect people on bikes, but everyone other than people in cars.

I don't believe hivis makes a blind bit of difference and lots of research backs this up. If it's light you should be able to see someone regardless of what they are wearing. If you cannot then you are not looking or going to fast to look properly. At night hivis doesn't work. I am referring here to flouro colours, not retro reflectives. Most of the gear I wear after dark has reflective areas, and they are helpful.

iso2000 wrote:

when discussing cycle safety, cyclists seem obsessed with being seen from behind. I don't understand this, surely you are far more likely to be injured by a car pulling out in front of you. Does anyone have a breakdown by type of accident?

I can see the car pulling out in front of me and even the one left hooking me. there might not be much time to react, but being hit from behind is totally outside the cyclists control.

andyp wrote:

'there is evidence that the legal system doesn't give a **** about drivers and dangerous driving.'

That is, of course, absolute shite.

Read this:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-micha...

Then try saying that again.

stumps wrote:

Cant win no matter what they try to do. Perhaps try doing our job will give people an insight into what we do have to deal with, such as the young 16 year old asylum seeker sold into prostitution by unscrupulous blokes or the 6 year old kid running through the snow last night because mammy was being filled in by her boyfriend again or sitting in the road for 50 mins holding a blokes head waiting for an ambulance after a cyclist decided to go for a gap that wasn't there or better still sitting with an old lady trying to comfort her after some bloke pretended to be from the gas board and stole her jewellery. The list goes on and on and on.

But people on here would rather we stood at junctions stopping people who drive into the cycling box or are on their mobiles, but yes we do that as well when we get a chance...

Not me for one: MY opinion is that the powers that be have cut road policing as an 'invisible' policing cut for a very long time.

Yes, the priorities are probably more or less correct given the number of available officers.

We have too few officers, esp on the roads.

stumps wrote:

But people on here would rather we stood at junctions stopping people who drive into the cycling box or are on their mobiles, but yes we do that as well when we get a chance...

Stumps, which is illegal, not wearing hi-viz or driving into a cycling box whilst using the phone?

The Police will never be able to enforce the law fully, as I have stated before the police can never enforce the law, the law only works because most people accept it. This isn't a dig at the police just a factual statement that there are far more potential offenders, ie people, than there are police to enforce the law.

On the basis that the police can only do so much the question is what would be the most productive use of police time. Is it to say to a cyclist you should wear hi-viz? or is it to say to the driver you should not be on the mobile, speeding, dangerous driving etc.

I start from a standard risk pyramid scenario, PPE is always the last step. Look at the dangers and fix them first, the problem on the roads is predominately car drivers, and if you look at death rates HGVs are also a problem, put the effort into correcting behaviour and the roads become nicer places for residents, cyclists, pedestrians. Once drivers start playing by the rules, then feel free to chastise cyclists.