Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing

horizontal dropout wrote:

"What use is high vis in the dark?"

Hi-viz usually means retro-reflective and fluorescent. There might be some debate about the effectiveness of fluorescent in the day time (and clearly it's not much use at night) but retro-reflective is as bright as or brighter at night than many bike lights. You only have to look at any bike light review which includes shots of reflective items.

By the way my local police recently told us that "If a cyclist is involved in an accident and they are not able to be seen because they are wearing black/dark clothing that will be used in mitigation for the driver. That is allowed in law. If he is not visible, a defence lawyer will use it. ". That might be civil cases where "on balance of probabilities" applies versus criminal cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" applies.

It's probably brighter than cheapie bright lights but, overkill brightness debate aside, most good rears should be very visible indeed. And, also, worth having more of them than one.

What does high vis mean? Well, there's an issue. Can we trust those handing it out to know that the yellow vest includes reflective elements? Or that it's a pointless yellow vest? There's a very real danger here that high vis means bright yellow and if you're found wearing a black jacket with some substantial reflective parts then you're not wearing "high vis." A fallacy. In the dark.

As to CIVIL mitigation. Yeah, kind of. But much depends on the rest of the circumstances. Which may be inumerable.

birzzles wrote:

joggers in black listening to music, only saw one of those at the last minute on the bike aswell... ..Just moronic really.

You were going too fast for the conditions.

birzzles wrote:

Even on sunny day under dappled shade a cyclist can be invisible. I even failed to see a woman on a horse in these conditions while on my bike. Also joggers in black listening to music, only saw one of those at the last minute on the bike aswell.

Really you can be invisible. Annoyed by suicidal tendencies amongst cyclists when i am driving, but i have only heard of one truly invisible person killed. He was a drunk walker on an unlight A road - taxi driver had no idea what he hit, and they took ages to find the body. Driver gets my sympathy.

What is the thinking? Trying to give other road users more of a challenge? Just moronic really.

Truly invisible? What, the walker had a cloaking device?

The driver deserves no sympathy. The Highway Code says 'drive so that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear'. Not 'imagine might be clear', not 'drive even though you can't see jackshit', not 'drive by using the Force and your instincts'. Most of the collisions caused by motorists would be avoided if they followed this.

Tinternet_tim wrote:

OK, so I understand the comments above that cyclist shouldn't be the only ones targeted and it feels like we are singled out yet again.

BUT, why pick on the police for taking steps to try and minimise incidents (and yes, I do believe steps can be made to improve cyclist visibility to reduce incidents).
If the above report read that "police we first targeting cyclist and then were going to look at pedestrian and vehicle visibility in the future", who you all have been so critical (just for my understanding?)

As someone who commutes to Evesham everyday, I would be happy if this was matched with action on the drivers on the A46 or the back lanes that get used as cut throughs, but no chance. I grant the police are most weeks parked on the sedgeborough bypass for a few hours, usually at the top sometimes at the bottom with a speedgun.

But the number of dangerous overtakes, or the fact that when I was hit whilst using the cyclepath was of no interest to the police.

Cycling at night with no lights is stupid, so is driving at night with no lights!!! which happens more often than I can comprehend!

Going after cyclists is easy low hanging fruit, it doesn't really make the roads any safer.

Tinternet_tim wrote:

Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don't care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.

it is fair to criticise the police for stopping people who are not breaking the law

it is fair to criticise the police for trying to enforce something which is neither a legal requirement nor of any proven practical value

it is fair to criticise the police for blaming accidents on cyclist's clothing and not dangerous driving

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting members of a minority group because it is easy rather than the majority in vehicles who actually cause the harm and do most of the law breaking, a policy of 'criminalise the catchable rather than catch the criminal'

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting the victims not the perpetrators of criminal behaviour

Northernbike wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote:

Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don't care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.

it is fair to criticise the police for stopping people who are not breaking the law

it is fair to criticise the police for trying to enforce something which is neither a legal requirement nor of any proven practical value

it is fair to criticise the police for blaming accidents on cyclist's clothing and not dangerous driving

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting members of a minority group because it is easy rather than the majority in vehicles who actually cause the harm and do most of the law breaking, a policy of 'criminalise the catchable rather than catch the criminal'

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting the victims not the perpetrators of criminal behaviour

They're giving advice - not 'unfairly targeting', 'enforcing' or 'ciminalising' the cyclist. I wish people could drop the persecution complex. It would make the sensible and proper arguments about road safety for vulnerable road users appear much more legitimate, if we did.

Northernbike wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote:

Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don't care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.

it is fair to criticise the police for stopping people who are not breaking the law

it is fair to criticise the police for trying to enforce something which is neither a legal requirement nor of any proven practical value

it is fair to criticise the police for blaming accidents on cyclist's clothing and not dangerous driving

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting members of a minority group because it is easy rather than the majority in vehicles who actually cause the harm and do most of the law breaking, a policy of 'criminalise the catchable rather than catch the criminal'

it is fair to criticise the police for targeting the victims not the perpetrators of criminal behaviour

Though to be fair to the police, the highway code does state that (59) [cyclists should wear] light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light. So perhaps this comes under the heading 'education'. Personally I don't wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.

dassie wrote:

Personally I don't wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.

Do you know who do wear top to toe dark clothing, and very frequently?

http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275788/Article/images/13611007/32670...

I double dare you to smash in to one of those on your bike and then claim you couldn't see them due to their lack of yellow.

See how far the argument goes when the jackboot is on the other foot.

dassie wrote:

Though to be fair to the police, the highway code does state that (59) [cyclists should wear] light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light. So perhaps this comes under the heading 'education'. Personally I don't wear head-to-toe dark clothing, and do often daylight run a flashing rear LED.

Whilst this is true, a judge also declared to a jury to "ignore the highway code" in relation to slowing down when faced with a low sun.

http://road.cc/content/news/136356-two-drivers-cleared-causing-death-car...

This Judge's colleagues must be EMBARASSED by his behaviour ?

Must be some way that he can be censured , thus sending a CLEAR Message to other colleagues who view the " DEAD " as of nO account ! Even the relatives of the deceased appear to be scorned by this erroneous behaviour ?

Time that the law started to ACT against " Drivers " that allow their passengers to behave badly whilst in motion ? At present there are jurisdictions where the Driver loses " points " when the passenger seatbelt is not in use ? Time that " hurling abuse and missiles " cost the driver their licence ?

Even " Cowardly close pass " deserves a period of reflection , better even , when required to ride a bike to work for a period ?

Too far ? TOO BAD ! Should have considered the consequences before making that childish / infantile " Coward Pass "!

Tinternet_tim wrote:

OK, so I understand the comments above that cyclist shouldn't be the only ones targeted and it feels like we are singled out yet again.

BUT, why pick on the police for taking steps to try and minimise incidents (and yes, I do believe steps can be made to improve cyclist visibility to reduce incidents).
If the above report read that "police we first targeting cyclist and then were going to look at pedestrian and vehicle visibility in the future", who you all have been so critical (just for my understanding?)

I am also going to make the assumption that the majority of people who use this forum are keen cyclist who keep their bikes well maintained and have relatively bright lights? Not all cyclist do, I see so many on the roads during the dark mornings and evenings of winter who are not visible because they have no lights and are dressed in black with no reflectors or reflective strips on their clothes. There have been instances whilst I am cycling at 15-20 mph and not seen them until I am almost on top of them.....it'll be even worse traveling at greater speed in a car!

From my experience, bright yellow clothing has little benefit once darkness falls, but having reflective clothing certainly does, so why not remind people of this or make them aware of it if they haven't already thought of it? What harm has it done?

On the flip side, if cyclists are riding at night and don't have lights on their bikes, why aren't they issued with a fine or given a 'producer' to makes sure they have fitted lights within 14 days? In my opinion, there is no excuse for not having a front and rear light on your bike.

Why do so many user of this forum so frequently criticise authority or see it as a personal attack at them? Yes, I understand that it often feels like everyone is against cyclist, yes I understand that safety improvements need to be across the whole spectrum. And yes, I understand that there are SO MANY bad drivers out there who pay so little attention to other road users OR more worryingly don't care about other road users. But surely a little extra visibility is a good thing to help you become a little more obvious to the good drivers out there.

Ok, let the criticism begin!

I agree. I can't see why it's a problem to make some cyclists aware that they are at increased risk if they are dressed up like the SAS on a dank morning. They may not be legally required to have lights at that time or wear high viz but it can't hurt to make some of them more aware.

I had a friend at Uni that was forever just walking across busy roads in London quite nonchalently. Couldn't see the problem. he could see the cars quite clearly so obviously the drivers could see him. He didn't drive at the time. Only a few years later when he started driving did he realise that at times he was almost completely invisible. That gave him quite a bit of pause for thought. It may be that some of these people riding bikes are quite unaware just how low viz they are.

I rode up to and had a chat with a young lady on an MTB at about 6.15 pm last week with one of those high crud catcher mudguards on the back. She did have a light but hadn't actually looked at the positioning of the light and the mudguard. The light was obscured until you were about 3 metres away. She thanked me for politely pointing that out.

I don't see the problem. And yes they should have a word with some drivers as well. But all the whataboutery seems silly to me.

Next thing you know they'll be victimising householders by offering advice on home security. When really they should just be catching the burglars........