Duncan wrote:
"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000
asterope wrote:

"great way to get yourself killed, love."

i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard.

I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so
hard to see".


He's got a point. I mainly lurk here but when you were deciding on a bike I
almost piped up to talk you out of a recumbent. For a lot of drivers
they're practicaly invisible, they're less manouverable and wider so more
likely to be clipped. A flag doesn't cut it, a burning flare might be a
better option.


If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most
bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I
think the RTA's eyesight test needs work.


As you yourself have pointed out it's not about eyesight, it's about
processing what you see. People just aren't looking for recumbents so they
won't see them. I've seen recumbents so low they don't make it up to a cars
window, on top of that they keep getting stuck lane splitting. A driver
could do everything right and still hit them.

Well I would suggest that the driver wouldn't have done *everything*
right then. Especially as you just pointed out - you can see them.

How is a recumbent (even a low one like your talking about) different
from other similar sized objects likely to be found on the roads such as:
* Children?
* Domestic animals?
* Wheelie bins?

Saying that someone is putting themselves in greater danger because they
ride a bike which is deemed too small/narrow to be seen properly is a
cop out. The SMIDSY phenomenon is alive and well putside of cycling
circles. You only have to see the number of people who drive into the
back of other cars, busses and trucks to know that size doesn't make a
scrap of difference.

Cheers,

--
BrettS