Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

Rod King wrote:
Elisa

Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow down
rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.

When motorists say that a cyclist was invisible or they just didn't see them
it is usually because they aren't looking. What you are really complaining
about was that there was little time to take avoiding action when seeing a
cyclist. That is a car speed issue rather than a cyslist visiblity issue.
Cyclists in flourescent jackets enable drivers to go faster. Hence when they
do hit a cyclists theor pedestrian they are more likely to kill them.

I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to conduct
their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
vision. That means GO SLOWER.

Merry Christmas

Rod King


Hey Rod.

While there is some truth to your viewpoint, it is not entirely correct.
Many cyclists ride without lights or reflectors while wearing dark
clothes. Typically, cyclist ride at the side of the road rather than in
the middle of the lane. All of this makes seeing a cyclist difficult at
night.

On the other hand, drivers have no trouble seeing other motor vehicles
as they have lights and, to an extent, reflectors.

No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
distance.

Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take
reasonable steps to be visible.

No driver is willingly going to drive at, say, 10KMH on the off-chance
that there might be a stealth cyclist up ahead when, without a stealth
cyclist, 35KMH is a reasonable speed. To expect the driver to do so is
unreasonable.

As a driver, I do not control other users of the road. I am responsible
for, and in control of, my own actions. I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.

As a cyclists, we do not control other users of the road. We are
responsible for, and in control of, our own actions. We first must put
ourselves in the right and then educate others. If we do those two
things, I am convinced our casualty rates will plummet.

Merry Christmas and a Safe New Year

Jeff

Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on both sides
of the pond!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" wrote in message
...
In these dark winter months, I am car-pooling with a colleague to get to
work. Although I am impervious to cold, I am not happy about cycling
because of the poor visibility. My road to work is poorly lit, my eyesight
is bad, my balance perturbed by the dancing beam of my front light and my
glasses fog up every time I stop.

In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
aware of this.

Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with. Then many ride
entirely without lights, or just a little reflector. Great aurioles of
light surround the street lights and the headlights of the oncoming cars,
casting everything else around them into a pitch black shadow from the
glare. A few days ago, I was standing on a pavement waiting for a bus,
looking directly into the traffic. Two cyclists swooped right in front of
me - they were less than 30 feet from me before I even noticed them.

On mornings and even in the broad daylight of the lunch hour, there is
frequently a freezing smog that not only soups up the air but makes the
ground slippery. This smog can come on quite suddenly - all is clear, then
the car descends into a barely perceptible valley and the windscreen
empties like a movie screen with the projector turned off.

For night riding it has been my personal practise to wear a reflector vest
and blinkie lights on armbands. I have a LED headlight and a small red
backlight. But my lesson from this is that perhaps even I need to up the
ante. I shall get myself a yellow reflector parka from Glow Dog, and wear
that even as a pedestrian. And I need more blinkies, especially in the
back.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but for those of you who do cycle
in the dark, please make sure you are as visible as you can make
yourselves. Perhaps do a visibility test with your gear - ask family or a
neighbor for feedback on whether you can be seen and at what distance,
especially if you are sharing the road with cars and headlights.

Safe riding to all,

EFR
Ile de France

Pinky wrote:
Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on
both sides of the pond!

Ah. Troll.

Good one.

wrote:
David Martin wrote:

wrote:

Look at it this way - if you wanted to move around at night without
being spotted would you wear dark non-reflective clothes, carry no
lights, perhaps black up your face with burnt cork in the old fashioned
way, or would you wear bright light reflective clothing, carry bright
lamps etc etc? Clue to the answer - the first approach is called
"camouflage" (though I'm not sure how you spell it). Geddit!
Or to look at it another way - try drawing a black figure on black
paper. Er, how else can I explain this difficult concept!

How do you camouflage yourself to get into the Houses of Parliament?
wear bright fluorescent jackets etc.

If you ask the average motorist, they'll be able to tell you exactly
how many no-lights-dark-clothes-invisible-cant-see-the-buggers they saw
but won't remember a single one wearing an EN40whatever reflective
vest. Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.


Yes you are so right. There's more to camouflage than meets the eye!
Next time I cycle in town at night I intend to disguise myself as an
unlit stretch of tarmac so that motorists will be able to pick me out
amongst the reflective jackets.


The whole situation is kinda dumb, but it really comes down to clothing
design, why is it that winter coats are dark colours, when much of the
time, it's dark out. I work for a courier company, and the courier
jackets make use of reflective stripes of material, driving into a dark
parking area, you can see two stripes one about 1.2m and 1.7m off the
ground, it's easy to deduct that it's a person walking, especially since
the stripes are moving. Really all jackets and coats should require it,
hmmm, there is something to mention to clothing designers.....

As for cyclists, the key is to be as visible as possible, at all times,
and if that means wearing a neon orange safety vest, with reflective
yellow stripes, and having a steady red, and a blinking amber rear
light, and three headlights (locomotive style -- one in the middle up
high {on the bars}, and two down near the ground { one on each fork leg
} ), then so be it. BTW you can buy a mesh orange safety vest for as
little as $5, many cycling rain jackets have the reflective tape already
applied, a roll of reflective tape can be had from many places.

As for the people on bikes, where you get a person who dresses all in
black, and rides a reflectorless black bike at night with no lights,
well I believe the term is darwinism...... However I think that cycling
clubs and cycling groups and alternative transportation groups, and even
automotive groups, should get together to put on a Visible Cycling
campaign, to promote being visible when cycling.

W

Jeff Williams wrote:
I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.

You don't need to be able to identify a cyclist. You need to be able to
identify a road. If you can see the road then it is clear to proceed,
If you can see soemthing that is not road then it isn't. (Gross
simplification but otherwise true.)

...d

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:25:31 -0500, The Wogster
wrote:

The whole situation is kinda dumb, but it really comes down to clothing
design, why is it that winter coats are dark colours, when much of the
time, it's dark out. I work for a courier company, and the courier
jackets make use of reflective stripes of material, driving into a dark
parking area, you can see two stripes one about 1.2m and 1.7m off the
ground, it's easy to deduct that it's a person walking, especially since
the stripes are moving. Really all jackets and coats should require it,
hmmm, there is something to mention to clothing designers.....

Isn't it wierd that most cycling jackets can be found in yellow or
similar color, but hardly any long-sleeve jerseys are bright? Gray,
dark red, blue, or black are pretty much invisible at dusk or night,
but those are the colors you see available for most jerseys when
scanning the catalogs and web sites.

Pat
Email address works as is.

My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights. The
cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
gear. One of the cyclists was our son!

As a result of this shocking incident I started an online source of
cycle safety info - we also sell cycle conspicuity gear & other cycle
safety gadgets.

www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!

Chris Street (Happy Xmas Day)

David Martin wrote:
Jeff Williams wrote:

I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.


You don't need to be able to identify a cyclist. You need to be able to
identify a road. If you can see the road then it is clear to proceed,
If you can see soemthing that is not road then it isn't. (Gross
simplification but otherwise true.)

..d


True enough. However:

At a distance of 100m, a cyclist seen from behind occupies less than 1
degree of my field of view. Relative to a dark background, most
cyclists do not demonstrate significant movement in a very short period
of time. Given the profile of a cyclist seen from behind at a distance
of 100m or so, in the dark a cyclist can easily be mistaken for an
inanimate object.

As I noted in my prior post, cyclists tend to ride at the side of the
road, not in the middle of the lane. That doesn't mean a cyclist might
not swerve towards the middle of the lane to avoid a pothole, etc.

And don't forget that cyclists can be riding on crossroads. A cyclist
may not be on my road until shortly before I close in on the intersection.

If you'd rather not be seen, that's y'all's business. Personally, I'd
rather give the four-wheelers an opportunity to see me and, hopefully,
avoid me.

Jeff

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Pinky wrote:
Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on
both sides of the pond!

Ah. Troll.

Good one.

But as you see, I am not a w*nker like you


--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply

"Pinky" wrote in message
.uk...
But as you see, I am not a w*nker like you

Who ARE you a ****** like, then?