[Closed] I nearly killed a cyclist tonight.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!

This. Being in the right won't make you any less dead.

"Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD! "
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can't in this case.

"[i]This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD![/i]"

What, like driving into space you can't see without the ability to stop?

There's a lot of it about;

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094[/url]

[img] [/img]

Except, actually, motorways and fast DCs tend to be well illuminated when busy, whether by overhead lighting or by other vehicles - and when they're not busy enough for other light to fall, you can use main beam at least intermittently. It's very rare that you simply cannot see the road beyond a dipped beam envelope - and if you genuinely can't then should you really be doing 70?

So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting's usualy only arround junctions, and even then it's often turned off after midnight.

I used to drive Reading to Teeside almost weekly at some ungodly hours, the number of times when I was either not folloing another car or had an oncoming car (i.e. could put main beams on) but wasn't close enough to the car infront to iluminate all the space between me and them (and that would probably be within the 2 second rule anyway?), was probably precicely ZERO.

So either I'm a crap driver (I'd not claim to be above average, but that was another thread), or it's reasnoble to expect drivers to be doing 70mph with dipped beams on motorways and comparable DC's.

Yes Bez, spot on.
which in this the OP has demonstrated that he clearly was driving in a safe manner.
When he saw a hazard ahead he was able to react in good time.
The Rangie however, possibly only looking as far as the bumper of the car infront.

[url= http://www.roadsuk.com/network/special/ ]For cookeaa[/url]

Speshpaul - Member

"Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD! "
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can't in this case.

Bez - Member

"This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!"

What, like driving into space you can't see without the ability to stop?

"[i]So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting's usualy only arround junctions, and even then it's often turned off after midnight.[/i]"

Well, we're not talking about motorways, where cyclists, horses and pedestrians are prohibited.

Also we seem to have latched onto a figure of 30mph which someone has (unless there's a citation waiting in the wings) pulled out of thin air and is seemingly based on the idea that what's in your beam you can see and what isn't you can't, which is rarely actually the case.

So, I'm not sure I can answer your question. I'll try some others.

Do I drive at 30 on the motorway? No. Do I drive such that I could avoid a completely unexpected inanimate object in the middle of a dual carriageway? Hopefully, but I confess I wouldn't want to guarantee it. Do I drive such that I could avoid a legitimate vehicle with a significantly slower speed than me? I sincerely hope so, and I believe I do. Am I perfect? No. Do I sometimes make mistakes? Yes. Do I [i]first and foremost[/i] consider my [i]own[/i] behaviour if and when something bad nearly happens? Absolutely.

It's the last one that's key. I don't think enough people can truthfully answer yes to it.

Like I say, we're all capable of deciding that the most important thing is not to kill someone today.

I would have thought it was about taking REASONABLE steps to prevent killing someone.
You can't mitigate for EVERY possible scenario.
I would suggest that trying to avoid a poorly visible cyclist on an unlit road where they shouldn't have been in the first place (if indeed cyclists are not permitted) is one scenario.

"Tis true I'd forgotten that - guess the cyclist was lucky didn't collected by an irish trucker trying to catch the ferry "

- With a magnet on the Tackograph and half asleep!!

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/half-lorries-tested-a55-north-2799139

"[i]Oh FFS, so if its dark and he's on an unlit section of motorway (for example the M6 in the Lune Gorge) he should drive a 30mph on the off chance there is someone doing something they shouldn't? You're just being ridiculous for the sake of it.[/i]

I'm not being so ridiculous as to suddenly decide to base the discussion on motorways or accept the figure of 30mph from An Internet Reckon.

Some interesting points of view here.

To be fair I will take it on the chin re my helmet comment, I was probably still in shock writing it!

The stretch of the A55 in question (for those that know it) was heading east about 3/4 of a mile before the Abergwyngregyn (Aber)turn off just before Llanfairfechan, it's unlit and narrow.

To be fair on the Range Rover driver he wasnt hammering it, he cant have been doing much more than me. I dont know why he decided to call the Police, I didnt see the need because I was in a position to stop the cylist for a chat. There is a cycle route that satelites the A55, it has a bit of a climb in it and would add a bit to your journey but better than that chosen route.

It all kind of happened in a split second, his single LED light was on but fitted to the seat stay so facing up a bit rather than straight out to the rear, maybe that's why it wasnt seen in time, I dont know.

Im not sure if that perticular stretch of the A55 is restricted for cyclists but I certainly wouldnt want to ride it.

Also we seem to have latched onto a figure of 30mph which someone has (unless there's a citation waiting in the wings)

Source: my old driving instructor, but backed up but the folowing. 30m is the minimum distance they project up/allong the road.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

And then some pious individuals try and suggest that, actually, its the motorist's fault for driving to fast on a fast dual carriageway road?

But then kicking off the OP with a helmet dig didn't help.

There's a special road near us, I used to ride it, since has had some subtle signs stating cycles aren't allowed but have seen 1 rider either not see them or ignore them.

Does that actually hold true, though? No beam pattern I've ever used looks anything like that drawing; the left side projects much [i]further[/i] than the central part does, and there's no way things suddenly become completely unilluminated at 30m.

Part of the problem is that car is driving on the wrong side of the road!

Bez
"Well, we're not talking about motorways, where cyclists, horses and pedestrians are prohibited."

No, again you are right on that point.
However we are talking about an A road where [b]cyclists are prohibited.[/b]

Ah, indeed. I assumed it was a DC but the solid line is a giveaway.

So we can agree that according to that diagram and data, driving at 50mph would be enough to theoretically avoid a collision through braking alone - even if everything outside of that beam pattern was completely invisible - and we can put this silly "30mph on the motorway" straw man to bed?

And What if he can't read English of Klingon?

this had so much potential

"[i]However we are talking about an A road where cyclists are prohibited.[/i]"

Are they? There's no mention of an "(M)" designation, which would prohibit them. And without that it's exceptional for cyclists to be restricted (normally only tunnels). I don't know the road personally.

It's kind of an incidental point, though. People on bicycles aren't the only thing that people may want to avoid on a large A-road.

Bez, im not sure why, but you seem to revel in nitpicking for the sake of it.
30mph was an exaggerated figure for illustrative purposes only, im sure you got that really and 50mph is probably correct.

Are they?

For a large stretch of it yes they are, by explicit signs rather than an M designation.

Well, I do 60 on motorways/DCs when it's chucking it down. I don't think I've ever done 30. 50 hardly seems unreasonable if the conditions demand it.

So if you're saying the difference between 30 and 50 is unimportant, you're going to stand by your statement that "driving at 50mph is just being ridiculous for the sake of it and by driving in such a manner you're far more likely to cause an accident than prevent one"…?

With the 30 in there, I'd probably agree with you. With 50 in there I probably don't (I still dispute the idea that a light beam suddenly goes black at 60m and nothing beyond that is visible). The 30/50 difference seems rather significant to me; no less significant than a 50/70 difference.

You're just backpedalling badly. If you'd thought 50 was right all along, you'd have said 50, but you chose hyperbole because your argument doesn't really hold up that well when you actually start plugging real numbers and facts in.

Bez, I hear what you are saying and if I was driving down an unlit country road (which I do frequently) I drive according to the conditions. I "expect" to see at some point a walker or a cyclist coming the other way, or even going the same way, even if I never meet anyone on the road. If its broad daylight then I expect to meet a walker / cyclist / horse rider / car, etc around the corner or where a road narrows and I slow down and anticipate that meeting.

But if I'm on an unlit dual carriageway, especially one where the speed limit is 70mph and its laid out to accommodate that speed then I don't expect to meet a hiker / cyclist / horse in the middle of the carriageway - and if I do meet them then I fully expect them to make themselves as visible as possible as they know its that traffic will be moving at speed.

So yes, I agree that we should ALL take responsibility for not killing our fellow man on the road.

I don't see why the helmet issue is being flagged up. Let's say the OP saw the cyclist a fraction later, or the Range Rover rear ended him whilst braking. The cyclist got hit at 10, 20, maybe 30mph. It's not so irrelevant now is it?

"[i]So yes, I agree that we should ALL take responsibility for not killing our fellow man on the road.[/i]"

I agree fully, and - just for the record - I'll reiterate the fact that personally I think riding on that type of road with poor lighting is insane.

But most people are still sticking to this "yes, we should all take responsibility" idea in the same breath as "ah, but I don't [i]expect[/i] X/Y/Z".

Surely we'd all agree that we really don't want X/Y/Z to result in fatality, yet "taking responsibility" for most people doesn't appear to extend to accepting that such fatalities can be wholly avoided by a [i]unilateral[/i] change of behaviour on the part of those who have the heavy, fast vehicles from which the fatality arises.

Cheers for the clarifications Speshpaul and Trampus...
It looks like this cyclist may have had another strike against him, for riding on a section of road where he had no right of way and had signs telling him so...

I've learned a little bit today, I was not aware of the "Special Road" designation before, the reason for them makes sense, the fact that many don't seem to be fully signed is a little concerning, but we've rubbed along like this for ~60 years or so and barely anyone has died as a result...

And What if he can't read English of Klingon?

this had so much potential

I'll admit to attempting a slight derailment with that one... But There were just no biters... Everyone seems a might serious today...

This exact same argument was had two and a half years ago when I first went upto Teesside, which involved driving up the A19 (linking the M1 to Middlesborough, another 'motorway in all but name' type road where you can legaly ride a bike. It was foggy and there was a TT on.

Back then someone else said the cyclists had every right to be there, veichles should watch out for them etc etc.

Since then I think there's been at least two cycling deaths and a paralysis (not just in the fog) on that stretch, and they're still holding TT's there.

There comes a point where you've got to admit Bez that being right and dead are not mutualy exclusive. And that riding down NSL DC's that look like motorways and encourage drivers to drive as such, is a very bad idea. Because however perfect your driving standard is, by being on your bike the average has obvioulsy dropped a bit and you're enirely at the mercy of that. So maybe be a bit more sensible on the roads the cyclist in the OP chose to ride on and wear bight lights/reflective clothing/reflectors.

"[i]There comes a point where you've got to admit Bez that being right and dead are not mutualy exclusive.[/i]"

I think I've said at least twice now that I think riding on a road like that with poor lights and no reflectors is insane.

I wouldn't ride on a road like that, and I ride with a light 24/7. Though I have, once that I can recall, had a rear light stop working without having a backup. Funnily enough, that was on a 70mph dual carriageway (it's a very quiet one, because it's been bypassed by a much larger one now).

But none of that means that I think it's ok for me to drive a car in a way that would kill someone who was exercising their legal right (ok, it now seems debatable as to whether they had it in this case, but most roads like that aren't restricted to cyclists), or didn't know how much difference good lighting makes because they'd never actually driven a car on a road like that, or whose light had failed. I've decided not to kill someone. If that means I go 5mph slower that's ok. I'm not going to use "I didn't expect them" as an excuse. If we're repeatedly having to point out that we don't expect them, surely we kind of expect them?

Dunno, it just seems a reasonable bottom line to me: rather than making excuses, drive so you're sure you won't kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

It was foggy and there was a TT on.
...
Since then I think there's been at least two cycling deaths and a paralysis (not just in the fog) on that stretch, and they're still holding TT's there.

A well behaved TT rider is just a bloke riding down the road, same as anyone else, just a bit quicker. Bit of a worrying direction your comment [i]seems[/i] to be headed in.

Is the A19 a special road or is it "just" a DC? DCs are scary places to be and given an alternative I'd normally take one, but there are places in this country where you're stuck with a section of DC or staying home. Making DCs look like motorways and promoting unsafe driving is bad road planning, drivers driving like cars are the only traffic on the road is bad driving, transferring the onus of all that onto cyclists is not really on.

but yeah really good lights (as opposed to "standard") and visible clothes are a good idea

just a point, this talk of good lights, you do realise that most good lights are actually illegal! and lights that are legal are often crap.
And dynamos that have no standlight are legal!

Thought I should make this clear!

[url= http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations ]http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations[/url]

aye, I'd take good over legal anytime, thing is good illegal lights could land you in trouble same as crap legal ones and personal experience tells me all the lights in the world wont stop some numpties from (nearly) smearing you on the road. would be interesting to know if OP cyclists lights were legit (and whether that section of road was for bikes or not)

Bez, I'm in agreement with you mate

"[i]you do realise that most good lights are actually illegal! and lights that are legal are often crap.[/i]"

It's a pretty grey (ahem) area. Generally, within the EU (that's us) the policy applies that an equivalent standard from another EU country should be acceptable.

Germany/Netherlands have easily the best-defined lighting standards and legislation, AFAIK, and most front and rear dyno lighting (obvious exceptions include the USE and Supernova lights) complies with that, as do some battery lights eg the Philips Saferide.

But yeah, technically you're on slightly unsure footing with a lot of Japanese/Chinese/British lights. The legislation is way out of date. That said, I've not heard of a case where "high quality but questionable legality" lights have proven an issue in court or for the insurers. Would be interested to know of any.

not sure what you are saying there it reads like car drivers can't be trusted so TTs shouldn't take place*.

A well behaved TT rider is just a bloke riding down the road, same as anyone else, just a bit quicker. Bit of a worrying direction your comment seems to be headed in.

Is the A19 a special road or is it "just" a DC?

Yup that's exactly what I'm getting at.

It's 'just' a DC (hence you can hold TT's on it). But it's also the link between the M1 and Middleborough (Wilton, Billingham, British Steel, TATA, Seal Sands etc) and therefore designed to shift huge volumes of trafic quickly and efficnently.

Some laws protect us from other people, others from our own stupidity. On the latter basis I'd be in favour of a ban on bikes (and horses, horse deawn carriges, kids havign a kick about and pedal go-karts and everything else similalry curently legal on them), on NSL DC's. Not a worrying thought IMO, just common sense!

@thisisnotaspoon

Time and place, plenty of dual carriageways where there isn't an option, plenty of others where there is an option.

I think for most people if there is a sensible option then they will take it, but to be honest, I feel safer on some dual carriageway than on some single carriageway roads. eg got lost riding back from Abergavenny and ended up on the A40/48? dual carriageway, the one that goes through the tunnel into Monmouth. Not a pleasant road, but not actually that bad! There is Space in which to cycle. Compare this with the A46 Teddington to Evesham single carriageway road I ride most days, which is narrow, fast and unpleasant and far more IMO dangerous.

FWIW I'm comfortable with at least the idea of banning bicycles from busy DCs on the strategic network (the devil's in the detail: many don't have viable alternatives for cycling).

But I'm massively uncomfortable with anyone adopting the frame of mind that that's already happened.

But yeah, technically you're on slightly unsure footing with a lot of Japanese/Chinese/British lights. The legislation is way out of date. That said, I've not heard of a case where "high quality but questionable legality" lights have proven an issue in court or for the insurers. Would be interested to know of any.

I haven't heard of any, but the way the courts seem to treat cyclist deaths, being blinded by the lights of the person you run down seems a fair excuse!

On the latter basis I'd be in favour of a ban on bikes (and horses, horse deawn carriges, kids havign a kick about and pedal go-karts and everything else similalry curently legal on them), on NSL DC's.

All NSL DCs? I can think of several I have and will happily cycle on. As pointed out already, in some cases there isn't a good alternative.

More importantly though can we put to bed the idea that cyclists aren't allowed on the A55. There's only a relatively short stretch where they're banned, and it doesn't include the point where the incident in question happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A55_road#Colwyn_Bay_Bypass

Not that I'd choose to ride on the bit in question, given there is a viable alternative.

Not a worrying thought IMO, just common sense!

My commute used to go down a DC (50limit) it was ok-ish if you held primary (scary as hell if you rode in the gutter) but you would get abuse from drivers, the alternative was a 30mph rat run where thanks to a "just FYI" speedo I clocked people overtaking me at 45 on a narrow residential street. The alternative alternative is a couple of back streets but due to junctions and a couple of short (quiet) pavement sections (which some will flame me for) it's significantly slower, pita but a trade off I'd take most days.

I personally don't want to ride DCs but getting booted off them with no viable alternative is not palatable either.

We're off on a tangent now but what the hell.

I'd be very concerned by the idea of a blanket exclusion of bicycles from NSL DCs, especially when, as I learned today, the "Special Roads" statutory implement already exists to allow appropriate rights of way exclusions to be made as judged necessary on a case by case basis.

Of course it to the "car is King" mentality by placing a blanket restriction on where other forms of transport can legally travel.
It further helps drivers feel absolved of any responsibility for the consequences of their actions, the idea that they shouldn't be expected to pay as much attention or expect have to slow / stop for hazards just because they are on a wider, faster limit road is verging on comical...

Where does it stop? Place a blanket ban on riding bicycles on NSL DCs and you might as well start considering Busier NSL SCs or as some would have it, any road with a "Cycle path" on the kerb... All because [U]some[/U] drivers are inattentive, impatient gits.

Taking away rights of way on the grounds of "safety" is the thin end of a rather uncomfortable wedge IMO...

As a cyclist (and a driver), I'd rather have that choice over taking a direct but busy route Vs a quieter but longer one, than have people who really just want to drive on main roads without being expected to pay proper attention or moderate their speed force me off the road and tell me "its for my own good"...

I'd rather have this sort of thing judged on its individual merits, rather than a blanket ban.
Reviews of likely usage, volume, average speed, suitable reasonable alternative routes etc would all need to be looked at.

Certainly any such restriction would have to be adequately prevented from 'creeping', and would have to be contingent on some decent statutory provision of safe alternatives.

The case of the fast dual carriageway - particularly the strategic network which has very high levels of traffic - is a very problematic anomaly, though, in terms of allowing slow and highly vulnerable roads users onto an environment which is a motorway in all but name (and arguably rather more dangerous for even fast motorised traffic, given the same speed limit with generally no hard shoulder, less restriction of slow traffic, tighter bends and reduced sight lines, etc).

I've only spotted three people brave/stupid enough to ride on the A3 on a daily basis. That represents pretty much a de facto ban already. Even the cycle paths adjacent to it are pretty dangerous given the alarming frequency with which cars leave the main carriageway on that road.

Im reminded of Clarkson driving his P45 micro car thing onto the A3 East of Guildford and being rather frightened.
No way would I take a bike along there, in all but classification its a Motorway along there, certainly most motorists will regard it as such!

I'd rather have this sort of thing judged on its individual merits, rather than a blanket ban.
Reviews of likely usage, volume, average speed, suitable reasonable alternative routes etc would all need to be looked at.

Who makes the call and why? Seriously if it was a motorist and the motivation was to get rid of bikes, they might say a two mile diversion is ok, but 2miles to a car and a bike is a vastly different impact.

Certainly any such restriction would have to be adequately prevented from 'creeping', and would have to be contingent on some decent statutory provision of safe alternatives.

Even talking of such a thing suggests the creep has begun!

if this is true

rather than making excuses, drive so you're sure you won't kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

rather than making excuses, drive so you're sure you won't kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

Thing you missing, you have to prove your safe to drive, it is why you have a licence. You don't have to prove your safe to walk down the street or to ride a bike. The only place you should not expect cyclists is Motorways, and on that basis you drive on the assumption, or at least you should. ie no overtaking on blind bends!

Yes don't ride like an idiot, but that doesn't absolve motorists from actually bother to look where they are going.

"[i]Im reminded of Clarkson driving his P45 micro car thing onto the A3 East of Guildford and being rather frightened. No way would I take a bike along there, in all but classification its a Motorway along there, certainly most motorists will regard it as such![/i]"

I'd never ride there either. It's a 50 limit there but you wouldn't know it by the way people drive. It's an accident blackspot, regularly gummed up. And a mate of mine was hit there on a bike years ago (driver on the phone), sustained massive injuries that he never recovered from.

"[i]Even talking of such a thing suggests the creep has begun![/i]"

Of course the creep's already begun: motorways for a start, plus the existing restricted A roads.

"[i]Thing you missing, you have to prove your safe to drive, it is why you have a licence.[/i]"

In theory. I wasn't what I'd now call "safe" when I passed my test. (Anyway, we're agreeing, aren't we?)

"[i]if this is true: "rather than making excuses, drive so you're sure you won't kill anyone. Not even an idiot" so should this: "rather than making excuses, cycle so you're sure you're not easily killed by anyone. Don't be an idiot."[/i]"

Yes, to a point.

I liken it to guns and spud guns. You can have someone's eye out with a spud gun but you can do a lot worse with a proper firearm. That's why we licence the use of those and have specific laws around them; whereas we let kids use spud guns and we're happy to let any assault with a spud gun be dealt with by generic laws of assault.

The level of requirement to not behave like an idiot goes up with the capability for damage that the machinery provides. And just as it is for things with triggers, so it should be with things with wheels.

We let kids cross the road on foot and we let them ride bikes. Kids, we have to assume, often behave like idiots. Ok, we really don't expect kids to be riding along the A55 despite their entitlement to do so, but why not expect an idiot? Why excuse the death of an idiot? There are plenty of fast dual carriageways that have pedestrian crossing points, which daft kids and drunk people can easily use. Are we just going to write them off as not worth slowing down a bit for?

The important thing is that people get home to their families in the evening, not who is or isn't an idiot.

The real step forward only comes when you put the issue of idiocy aside and accept that we should be driving cars in a way that doesn't kill them.

Bez - I keep waivering on your arguments - sometimes your argument is good, but then you say something which I don't agree with.

Yes the important thing is that everyone should get home safe, even the idiots. And its a good line but....

If the idiot decided to jump out from behind a tree as you are going past at 20mph in a residential street then its hard not to drive a car in a way that wont kill them.

Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can't see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?

I'm not saying idiots deserve to die, I'm saying that trying to drive on the basis that you will never hit an idiot can be an impossible task.

By the way, I do drive on the basis that an idiot will jump in front of the car in a residential area (I'm constantly scanning the road and the pavement and junctions and parked cars, etc in case there is someone waiting to step out) but on dark unlit major roads I have to admit I don't expect someone to jump out in front of me from behind a tree, and having inadequate lights, no reflective clothing, dressed in black, etc is the equivalent of doing that on an unlit and fast section of road.

Yes, I should be aware of all other road users, but in the dark on a fast section of road we rely on our headlights and the lights of other road users (or crossings) to navigate safety.

Being an idiot should not be a death sentence, but we can only take reasonable precautions, you cannot legislate for every eventuality.

Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can't see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?

Or an unlit fallen tree, or an unlit object that's fallen off the back of a lorry?

If the idiot decided to jump out from behind a tree as you are going past at 20mph in a residential street then its hard not to drive a car in a way that wont kill them.

I'm guessing it's already been noted, but I think there's a distinct difference between having a clear road in which an obstacle is unexpectedly launched in front of you and you are unable to stop, and a road where the obstacle pre-dated your arrival and you are unable to stop.

I'm with those who just say well done to the OP.
I rant and rave at those who drive too close, I provoke arguments with mates and generate all sorts of ill feeling amongst those who I shouldn't do so too.
I loath it. Thee is no excuse. If you can't stop you are a complete ****wit who should lose the licence.
There is no excuse. If you are going too fast to see that fallen tree, sink off a lorry etc then you are going too fast. Easy really. Why some people are just too thick to see that I do not know.
However. S*it happens ( I had a tree land on my car after I had almost passed it and it was behind my windscreen and wotshisname from ELO was hit by a big bale) and there are some people who just ask to be hit and in this case I am with the Op all the way. Just occasionally the fates are against us.
Well done mate.

"[i]Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can't see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?[/i]"

I'm not saying it should be illegal, because for example doing 70 on a widely-visible road with main beam on can be quite safe, but I'm saying that driving fast enough to be unable to safely avoid an unlit cyclist ahead (lights can fail, reflectors can get splattered with dirt) is driving too fast to ensure that everyone gets home alive. And I'd argue that driving such that that situation will never result in a collision (a) is a good idea, (b) isn't much of an inconvenience, and (c) also results in being safe in a number of other scenarios such as a broken down car or some debris on the road such as a fallen tree. (And even an unlit cyclist is likely to be moving at 10mph or more, which reduces the differential.)

"[i]on dark unlit major roads I have to admit I don't expect someone to jump out in front of me from behind a tree, and having inadequate lights, no reflective clothing, dressed in black, etc is the equivalent of doing that on an unlit and fast section of road.[/i]"

Well, I'm not sure it is. In the former case I take it to imply someone appearing suddenly into your envelope of vision (since if they'd done it ahead of that envelope you'd not know they'd be jumping out) rather than someone already on the road whom you've pushed your envelope of vision towards.

Sure, I think someone leaping out from behind a tree directly in front of you on a major rural road is a pretty exceptional case where all bets are off, but I don't think someone moving in the same direction of travel entirely within the bit of road that you have to cover is analogous. I dunno, we're maybe getting into rather fiddly details here.

So, no, I'm not saying [i]every conceivable[/i] eventuality resulting in a collision is avoidable on a unilateral basis. But actually I do think it's pretty damn close to that.

Martin,

I saw your post title and had to click on it for personal interest because I came across a similarly poorly illuminated cyclist this morning. Once I read your post it hit me that my experience could have been with the same guy. I came across him at the last minute on the as he went around a roundabout heading south on the A470 coming out of Llandudno - the A470 joins the A55 at the Black Cat Roundabout. My encounter was at 07:15 this (Monday) morning. I know the A55 is long so it could simply be coincidence and maybe there are loads of them that started this summer and have not really got with the plan yet for the winter. My thoughts are with you and I hope this/these fellow cyclist/s gets with the plan sooner rather than later this winter.

Jimm

I have always found A55 a scary road when driving it, even when I was working on it as being built it was bloody dangerous (holywell BP) always busy always fast but the new road left a lot of the old road in place as quieter 'local'roads I hope we dont end up with 'man down 'thread. Still get flashbacks to watching site engineer send his chainman out into moving traffic to set out new junction, if one person had pulled out to overtake... That bit of work never did get checked !