Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

"crabsallover" (clip) conspicuity (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comnspicuity?

"crabsallover" wrote in message
oups.com...
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!

This cross-posting thing isn't always so bad. I see things here on your
site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack covers
[note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop; I'm
saying I'VE never seen them.]

So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED lights
for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle through patterns,
or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas" using red and green
spokes.

http://www.hokeyspokes.com/

These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid and
a conversation piece.

On 24 Dec 2005 01:57:11 -0800, wrote:


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.

I think cello-taping large denomination bills to frame tubes, fenders
and helmet would have the best chance for increasing ones visibility.
Most everyone is looking for money.
--
zk

Jeff

Some comments :-


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams"
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: 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.

Most actually do ride with reflectors. It is illegal in this country to sell
a complete bike
without pedal reflectors.

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.

I ride at least 1m out from the side of the road, but I would hardly say it
was difficult to see an abject 1m wide by 2 m tall in front of you, even if
it is wearing dark clothing.

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.

Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at a
speed such that he can stop within seeing distance because he/she is in
control of the vehicle that will cause the damage to the cylist or
pedestrian. He/she is in control of the dangerous vehicle and therefore
bears a far greater responsibility to avoid anything in its path.

The cyclist has no similar responnibility. It does have a right to be on the
road regardless of the colour of the clothing. Whilst reflective clothing
makes it easier for the motorist to see the cylist it does not absolve the
motorist from the responsibility to avoid cyclists wearing unreflective
clothes.



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.


Chance does not come into it. The driver should only drive at a speed that
is within the distance they can see. On full beam then they may be safe
doing 100 kph.


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.

You have just contradicted yourself!!!

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.

There is nothing wrong about not wearing reflective clothing at night.
Casualty rates are primarily connected to driver actions rather than cyclist
actions. In the Netherlands most cyclists do not wear reflective clothing
yet they have far lower accident rates per km cycled than the UK. If we want
accident rates for cyclists to plummet then we need to get the differential
speed between the cyclist and motorist to also plummet in urban areas. In
the UK it is 3 times what it is in most Northern European towns. That means
a third of the time to notice and avoid cyclists. That's why 20mph urban
speed limits are so important.

Whilst disagreeing, let take the opportuunity to reflect on the fact that we
both enjoy cycling and want to promote it.

Have a good Christmas Jeff

Best wishes

Rod King


Merry Christmas and a Safe New Year

Jeff

The Wogster wrote:

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......

No, it's ninjas. Bloody ninja cyclists going to conventions.

Ninjas!

--
Major M.D. Scrote

Jeff Williams wrote:

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.


Which is why having two flashing LED lights with a distance between them
on your bike is so effective. Because they are almost invariably not in
phase, from a distance they create the illusion of something moving
around which is what you need to get someone's visual attention.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On 23 Dec 2005 08:02:24 -0800, wrote:

So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
_something_ bright to be seen.

Besides my normal bike commute, I also walk my turbo-supercharged
Irish Setter in the morning before I pedal off to work, and in
the evening after my return from work. Perhaps 3-5 miles per day
(and maybe a 15 miler via MTB on a weekend!).

During the evening walk, I carry a small LED light and am constantly
surprised at how, even with a fairly bright light, I am apparently
not seen until the last minute as I and dog are preparing to dive
off the side of the road (a very dark, curvy road along the local
river course).

I now take to actually waving the light beam back and forth across
where I think the driver's head would be located in the oncoming
vehicle. Seems to do the trick in getting their attention.

My "iluminite" vest from Performance doesn't seem to do much any
more. Used to work quite well (sort of a bluish glow when hit by
car lights), but I think perhaps it's been washed too many times
and now "the glow is gone".


SMH

in message , Mike Kruger
') wrote:

www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!

This cross-posting thing isn't always so bad. I see things here on
your site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack
covers
[note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop;
[I'm
saying I'VE never seen them.]

So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED
lights for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle
through patterns, or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas"
using red and green spokes.

http://www.hokeyspokes.com/

These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid
and a conversation piece.

Hey, /anything/ which gets drivers attention has to be good, and these
appeal to kids who are otherwise too concerned about their street-cred
to switch their lights on. They are available over here, although I've
never seen them in a LBS.

However, they're not really visible from behind. Something similar for
pedals would be exceeding useful.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

in message , Rod
King ') wrote:

Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at
a speed such that he can stop within seeing distance

Yes, (s)he _should_, but on the whole they don't. It's sometimes better
to be alive than to be right.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

crabsallover wrote:
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. Despite
this we decided to blame the cyclists.
The cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
gear, not that these would have made a difference to someone "blinded
by some very bright house security lights"

One of the cyclists was our son!

As a result of this shocking incident I started an online
source of badly researched and debatable
cycle safety info, - we also spam newsgroups!
www.makemoneyoffcyclists.com was born!

Chris Street (Happy Xmas Day)