Helmut Springer wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::: I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving object
::::: of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized as a
::::: bicycle.
:::
::: Why? If someone knows a moving object is a bicycle, then they
::: might be more cautious, as some riders (kids, etc) tend to move in
::: unpredictable ways.
::
:: They might. They might pass with very little distance as a bicycle
:: doesn't impose a threat to them. They might or might not do other
:: things...

A bicycle does impose a threat to them if they hit it. That's called
killing someone, possibly going to jail, a major hassle at the very least,
etc.

::
:: Drivers are supposed to not collide with other road users (or
:: anything), and seeing them and assessing their trajectory is the
:: main base and thus the main goal.

And again, if they know it's a bicycle then they know that its trajectory
could change radically in a very short time. Hence, use EXTRA caution.

It would be one thing if the difference in letting someone know there is a
moving object near and letting them know there is a moving object near that
is a bicycle were a big deal or a lot of extra trouble to do. It's not.