[Closed] Autumn's here (SMIDSY content)

I had a go at a driving instructor yesterday for allowing his pupil to nearly wipe me out. He didn't seem to care. The DSA will probably care though... 😉

I had a go at a driving instructor yesterday for allowing his pupil to nearly wipe me out. He didn't seem to care.

They often don't - I've nearly been flattened when they're practicing their turns in the road and when advised to look first it actually just means other cars, cyclists are fair game.

I suppose I was wearing black so it's my fault

Well,it certainly doesn't help, does it?

Yes! I got one!

Great victim-blaming there reuben.

There is case law stating that there is no duty on cyclists to wear visible clothing.

Well,it certainly doesn't help, does it?

Agreed. The OP needs to have long hard look at himself.

Which might be difficult, what with him wearing all black like some big hitting ninja.

Out of interest - which colour/pattern is easiest to see?

It's almost as if the whole point of your OP was to provoke the comment you want to slap down.

Well,it certainly doesn't help, does it?

Drivers would find it much easier to see each other if their cars were painted fluorescent yellow.

thread degeneration in 3...2...1...

martinhutch - Member

It's almost as if the whole point of your OP was to provoke the comment you want to slap down.

Not at all - I didn't even consider that I'd get the response I did, but I'm happy to have the chance to challenge/educate.

Out of interest - which colour/pattern is easiest to see?

Vertical stripes. Also has the benefit of making one look slimmer.

I did, but I'm happy to have the chance to challenge/educate.

TJ??!

Great victim-blaming there reuben.

It's not victim blaming, blaming drunk girls in short skirts is victim blaming. Saying a cyclists was wearing black clothes in the twilight is just mitigating blame on the drivers, how exactly were they supposed to see you dressed as a ninja?

Drivers would find it much easier to see each other if their cars were painted fluorescent yellow.

For balance a pedestrian tried to run into me in plain daylight the other day - I think I was wearing either a bright blue or read t-shirt and was on the road, she left the pavement to cross the road and despite no other road users made a b-line for the side of me!

It's not victim blaming, blaming drunk girls in short skirts is victim blaming. Saying a cyclists was wearing black clothes i the twilight is just mitigating blame on the drivers

🙄

who mentioned twilight?

Car's are 10x the size, often metalic

Yes, and?

If a car didn't have it's lights on it would probably be found at fault for collision too.

In daylight?

Out of interest - which colour/pattern is easiest to see?

Well on the basis that for my latest SMIDSY near miss I had on a Pearl Izumi LS jersey in what is referred to as "Screaming Yellow", it was a clear morning & bike had flashing LEDs front & rear, it's really not about what's easiest to see.

I did point out to the soppy bint that I could probably be seen from space 👿

who mentioned twilight?

In daylight?

It was a post about commuting and the clocks changeing, pretty sure we're discussing riding in the twilight/dark.

Not at all - I didn't even consider that I'd get the response I did, but I'm happy to have the chance to challenge/educate.

pIt was a post about commuting and the clocks changeing, pretty sure we're discussing riding in the twilight/dark.

You should probably try re-reading the OP, and working out whether you've changed your clocks.

I'm always of amazed that the wearing of bright / reflective clothing is so controversial.

I'm even more shocked that no one has gone for "but what about wearing hi-vis on a sunny day going down a bright tree lined avenue during summer in the sunshine with a low sun - won't my black clothing be more contrasting then?"

I drive a big silver van and folk still don't see me, because they're just not looking.

Car's are 10x the size, often metalic, covered in lights.

Yet cars keep crashing into each other. It's almost as if the problem is the failure of drivers to look where they're going.

Wearing Black isn't against the law obviously, but it is largely considered Contrary to common sense...

There's still a few Stealth commuters round my way at the minute, dressed in balck and grey, one piddley Red LED on the back and some flashing POS up front (a few seem to be using green, is that legal?)...
TBH Much as a drivers who don't spot them are at fault, holding the moral highground, has yet to defend anyone from a Mondeo...

Bright Orange is a good colour I'm told, Hi-Viz Yellow has become a bit ubiquitous, So Bright Orange the way to go...

And as much retro-reflective paneling, stickers and RED LEDs as you can fit on you/your bike...

Give us time....

Ignore the trolling, we all know that drivers should be held up against an impossible-to-achieve level of perfection while ninja cyclists can have the satisfaction of being the most smug group in A&E 😉

thisisnotaspoon - Member
It's not victim blaming, blaming drunk girls in short skirts is victim blaming. Saying a cyclists was wearing black clothes in the twilight is just mitigating blame on the drivers, how exactly were they supposed to see you dressed as a ninja?

Who said it was twilight?

How is "mitigating driver-blame" different - it's just apportioning blame in the way I did but calling it something slightly different.

I think the government should fund free sets of these for all cyclists:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monkeylectric-Light-Party-LED-Bike/dp/B0081UDLDY/ref=sr_1_2?m=A18IL0CIKU8XDQ&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1412585147&sr=1-2 ]- Amazon[/url]

TBH Much as a drivers who don't spot them are at fault, holding the moral highground, has yet to defend anyone from a Mondeo...

Similarly, my bright flashing LEDs were of zero protection against an idiot in a Mini this morning.

we all know that drivers should be held up against an impossible-to-achieve level of perfection

If said perfection is seeing things before driving into them, then yes that seems a reasonable level of impossible-to-achieve perfection to expect of them. I note that the vehicle drivers are the ones introducing danger to an environment which would be very safe without them.

suburbanreuben - Member
Go on then- educate me.
Would you advise your nipper that it's OK to cycle wearing black, happy in the knowledge that if they did get run down "It was someone elses fault"? or would you teach them to swing the odds in their own favour?

Happy to - in your first post you are victim-blaming, in the second you aren't.

Ignore the trolling, we all know that drivers should be held up against an impossible-to-achieve level of perfection

I've never had any trouble spotting cyclists wearing normal clothing during daylight. Have I been doing it wrong?

It appears so, ransos, because it's unreasonable to expect drivers to look properly.

MoreCashThanDash - Member

We all know that drivers should be held up against an impossible-to-achieve level of perfection

[b][u][i]SERIOUSLY?[/i][/u][/b]

I am talking about 3 incidents within 10 minutes, all of which could have put me in hospital, 2 could have killed me.

Is it too much to ask that this doesn't happen?

think youll fiond the specialist wording for that type of nerar miss is.

Looked but didnt see and comprehend

Is it too much to ask that this doesn't happen?

It would appear so.

[u]SERIOUSLY?[/u]

I am talking about 3 incidents within 10 minutes, all of which could have put me in hospital, 2 could have killed me.

Is it too much to ask that this doesn't happen?

Hey I agree OP, if you've managed to comply with the minimum legal requirements for riding in low light conditions, it's fair to expect you won't get squished, and I'm sure [i]"Lawyers4U"[/i] will happliy chase anyone who knocks you off on that basis, but wouldn't you rather stay un-injured?

Maybe consider that it's only early October, yep it's a bit damper and darker this morning than it's been for a month or so, but the weather and light conditions are only going to get worse over the coming months and you've already had three close calls in one morning...

Driving standards in the UK are not what they should be, I can't dispute that fact and every change of the seasons has an effect on Driver's ability to cock things up, many of us know this, hence we choose to exceed that minimum standard and dress like Day-glo Christmas trees, for one thing it improves the likelihood of being noticed, it also serves to make any attempt at the SMIDSY defence that bit weaker allowing you to be that wee bit smugger...

All we're saying is perhaps you should take your morning adventure's as an indicator, and think about bolstering your visibility for winter OP...

doesnt matter what your wearing.

i got some corking footage last week - i was approaching a round about to turn right - car comming from opposite side.

can see right into the cab the lads looking down between his legs - doesnt seem to be slowing so i stopped even though i had right of way.

sailed straight through the round about.

i tooted my megahorn as he passed by and he looked up from his phone and started tooting his horn AT ME !

if they aint looking they wont see you.

if they aint looking they wont see you.

That's exactly it. You can be lit up like a Christmas tree and wearing all the high vis in the world, but if a driver or pedestrian isn't looking you've no chance. Even if they are looking, if they're not looking for a bike you're often still stuffed.

cookeaa - Member
All we're saying is perhaps you should take your morning adventure's as an indicator, and think about bolstering your visibility for winter OP...

As above, it wouldn't have made a single bit of difference this morning (I was there!).

SERIOUSLY?

I am talking about 3 incidents within 10 minutes, all of which could have put me in hospital, 2 could have killed me.

Is it too much to ask that this doesn't happen?

And you still maintain it was ENTIRELY their fault they couldn't see you?
You need to wise up fella!

And you still maintain it was ENTIRELY their fault they couldn't see you?

Well unless he has an invisibility cloak or they're blind, then clearly it wasn't an issue of couldn't, but one of them not looking properly. I'm not sure who else you'd suggest is at [b]fault[/b] for that.

Why is there this assumption - even from plenty of people on a forum supposedly for cyclists - that drivers shouldn't be expected to see everything which is in front of them?

if they aint looking they wont see you.

but if they are, even half arsedly, it might help.
Obviously, some drivers are blind, some are idiots. Some are blind idiots. We all know this. But knowing this, yet doing nothing to help oneself, is just stoopid!

Given that there are plenty people out there who have lots of undiagnosed mental health and other conditions who shouldn't be driving but haven't had their licence revoked there should be a medical brought into the driving test and it should need to be repeated regularly.

One of my previous patients had advanced dementia, but still had a driving licence and had been driving the previous week..

Why is there this assumption - even from plenty of people on a forum supposedly for cyclists - that drivers shouldn't be expected to see everything which is in front of them?

It's a slightly-reversed assumption. It's reasonable that drivers should see everything in front of them, but in reality it's a reasonable expectation that quite a few of them won't. Because a lot of them are careless, thoughtless buffoons.

Within reason, any additional action on my part that may get one or two synapses firing in their dormant brains is worthwhile.

Some of them will plough into you regardless, of course.

but if they are, even half arsedly, it might help.

What might help? Cyclists in reasonable daylight are not difficult to see, regardless of what they are wearing.

As above, it wouldn't have made a single bit of difference this morning (I was there!).

If you say so...

Discussed something similar with a mate the other week (after some daft biddy had only just successfully executed a sllooow overtake past me, downhill, as we approached a sharp left hander with coming traffic) - clearly she saw me, but arguably as an impediment she *had* to get past (impatience) and also - we surmised - some kind of projection of speed as in they visualise themselves cycling at what they think would be 5-10 mph and so see no problem getting past *any* cyclist..

Just poor judgement and in your case maybe the 'blind spot' that isn't really a blind spot..

You don't believe he was there?

cookeaa - Member

As above, it wouldn't have made a single bit of difference this morning (I was there!).

If you say so...

What knowledge do you have of what happened here?

Oh yeah, **** all. But still you seek to undermine me 🙄

Don't worry al, I set out on my commute today and had [b]ten[/b] near crashes in [b]three[/b] minutes! I agree with you, everyone [i]else[/i] on the roads is crap!

klumpy - Member

Don't worry al, I set out on my commute today and had ten near crashes in three minutes! I agree with you, everyone else on the roads is crap!

Too late, mate - nice try though. Actually, no, * off.

cynic-al - Member

What knowledge do you have of what happened here?

Oh yeah, * all. But still you seek to undermine me

Yes! I got one!

Needing attention are we?

Wow. I don't quite know what the most startling thing about this thread is.

Is it speed of escalation into a bun fight between people who should be 'on the same side'?

Or is it some of the spelling and grammar?

For what it's worth - here is my tuppence worth.

Firstly start from the assumption that the rest of the world is populated by halfwits. This gets you to a useful rule of thumb before you start considering anything else. Given that you are dealing with halfwits who don't realise that their lovely little car is probably the one thing in their lives with which they can easily kill or maim others, then it is probably best to stack the odds as much in your own favour as possible. Wear something bright, have at least two flashing rear lights and have your front light on in anything but bright daylight. Ask yourself the question - what do I stand to lose by doing this? A few quid and you look like a bit of a prat. What do I stand to lose by not doing this? Your life.

I shouldn't have to check the bill after a meal out or a hotel stay, but I do because it amazes me how often someone has ballsed it up.

Each and every day we all do things to mitigate against the incompetence of others, so doing it when your life could be on the line seems a small extra effort to make(?)

Needing attention are we?

I find hi-vis helps draw attention.

Wow. I don't quite know what the most startling thing about this thread is.

People missing the point?

People not reading the whole of the thread?

Sorry, I haven't read all the above.

I was chatting about driving stuff with my optician last week, about bifocals, satnavs and distance vision. She said she'd recently had an elderly person who said something like 'I don't see the roads very well now, so mostly I look at the satnav'.

I hope she tipped off the GP, DVLA or whoever.

Why is there this assumption - even from plenty of people on a forum supposedly for cyclists - that drivers shouldn't be expected to see everything which is in front of them?

Big difference between "shouldn't" and "can't".

I agree with you entirely about how things ought to be, but that is not the way they are.

Please answer the following question:

What is wrong with stacking the odds in your favour by wearing brighter stuff?

If your answer is "because I shouldn't have to" then we have reached the point where any further posts are rendered irrelevant.

Good job that wouldn't be my answer then.

I'll let you have a think about other possible reasons...

Though I'd also suggest that is the wrong question, when the post I replied to with that was:

And you still maintain it was ENTIRELY their fault they couldn't see you?

What is wrong with stacking the odds in your favour by wearing brighter stuff?

I think you're arguing from a false premise.

I think you're arguing from a false premise.

I don't.

I don't.

Then prove your case.

I assume you wear hi-viz for other low risk activities, such as walking on the pavement?

Crikey Al, taking the internetz a bit serious today aren't you?

"Undermine" you? calm down sugar... .

You're the one who came on to bleat about running the gauntlet with traffic this morning, and then last line dropped in your choice of stealthy attire, if you'd have left that little bit out I doubt anyone would have bothered to comment on it, you really thought STW being STW none of us would chip in on that point?

Like I said if you honestly reckon a more visible clothing choice would have made no difference to those drivers then fair enough, I will take your word for it.

What a Strangely polarized thread...

What a Strangely polarized thread...

No it ISN'T!

dannyh - Member
What is wrong with stacking the odds in your favour by wearing brighter stuff?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.

Stating that this is a duty incumbent on cyclists is both legally incorrect and victim-blaming.

being on facebook at the time telling the driver who was busy with his phone might have helped me. wearing a neon clown suit with big flashing I AM HERE sign wouldnt have worked as he simply wasnt looking in the direction of travel.

sad as it is - i see more and more of this in young drivers and middle age middlemanagement types whos blackberrys just gone off. You see it quite easily on bikes as you overtake them.

Why is there this assumption - even from plenty of people on a forum supposedly for cyclists - that drivers shouldn't be expected to see everything which is in front of them?

They are expected to see everything, and 99.99% of the time they do.

The difference is, do you want to be either:
a) the person who only gets seen 99.99% of the time
b) the person who gets seen all the time because the driver only caught you out of the corer of their eye in their wing mirror in between frequently enough to be aceptable mirror checks, filtering up the inside, but you were wearing a high vis jacket so you caught their eye and they didn't squish you.

It's th drivers fault fo not seeing you, but that's no excuse for not making life easier for everyone.

A bit like the cliche trotted out on motorcycle training courses, you can be deadright, but you're still dead.

Someone hit the nail on the head above when they talked about "minimum standards". It's perfectly legally to drive your car around with 1.7mm of tread. Is it a good idea or desirable to drive around with 1.7mm of tread?

Stating that this is a duty incumbent on cyclists is both legally incorrect and victim-blaming.

Some might have stated this, some might have insinuated it. I haven't done either.

I merely stated that starting with the view that the rest of the world is populated by halfwits means you learn to mitigate against their incompetence (as well as being disturbingly close to the truth).

It is not an issue I would want to take a moral stand on by going out with the minimum legal amount of reflectives/light seeking some kind of martyrdom just so I could say "I told you so"..........

The difference is, do you want to be either:
a) the person who only gets seen 99.99% of the time
b) the person who gets seen all the time

No - my guess (and yours is a guess too, and a daft one) is that it's:

a) the person who gets seen 90% of the time
b) the person who gets seen 95% of the time

No - my guess (and yours is a guess too, and a daft one) is that it's:

Regardless of the exact numbers, even your numbers make you 2x more likely to get hit. For the sake of wearing a high vis gillet/jacket?

Well my guess was a daft one too then 😛

Like I say, no amount of Hi Viz would have mattered this morning (I realise it might on other occasions)

I merely stated that starting with the view that the rest of the world is populated by halfwits means you learn to mitigate against their incompetence (as well as being disturbingly close to the truth).

Right, so we're back to helmets for drivers and hi-viz for pedestrians?

Right, so we're back to helmets for drivers and hi-viz for pedestrians?

Strange man.

Yay!

A STW Helmet [i]Debate[/i]...

Choccy Hob-Nob anyone?

Strange man.

Well, there's me convinced by the strength of your argument. 🙄

Strange? He's proposing measures which have more affect on road safety than yours and you call him strange?

He's proposing measures which have more affect on road safety than yours and you call him strange?

Like I say, no amount of Hi Viz would have mattered this morning (I realise it might on other occasions)

Not being facetious, but why?

Even stood infront of someene you'd catch their attention more in bright clothing. Or did they see you, and then not act on that information?

Choccy Hob-Nob anyone?

I've broken out the big gunz.

[img] [/img]

Anyone else seen/remember Disco Biscuits? I think they're an Aldi own brand.

Ohhh, and Jamie, your secrets out, you don't use photoshop, just printe out the pics and use scisors!

thisisnotaspoon - Member
Even stood infront of someene you'd catch their attention more in bright clothing. Or did they see you, and then not act on that information?

None of them were looking in my direction enough to see me (I saw that 2 weren't, the other is a belief).