New Sub-species of Stealth Cyclist

It is rather worrying to read that some seem to belive I was actually
suggesting that the use of high power lighting syetms ACTUALLY make
one invisisble. What I was suggesting is that whatever lighting you
use or don't, the real problem is not drivers failing to 'see'
cyclists but failing to act appropriately when they do.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where all a driver has to do is
simply claim that they didn't 'see' a cyclist in order to be excused
all responsibility for cauing death and injury. This applies even when
it is quite clear conspicuity is simply NOT an issue. For example,
where they have overtaken a cyclist then turned left across their
path.

Any driver who fails to 'see' a cyclist in normal daylight conditions
is almost by definition driving without due care. Motorists often
drive far too fast to be able to stop in the distance they can
actually SEE to be clear and then have the gall to blame the cyclists
for not being 'conspicuous enough. Even at night if one drives at a
SPEED APPROPRIATE TO The CONDITIONS one should be able to see a
cyclist quite well, that is what head lights are for...


I accept there is a particular need for cyclists to use a front light
in town as a driver cannot rely on their headlights to see a cyclist
approaching a junction the driver is waiting to pull out of.
Unfortunately some drivers simply don't take a proper observation at
all, so making any lighting or high visability clothing somewhat
redundant, others simply assume a cyclist will be doing no more the 8
MPH and yet more simply don't give a toss and will pull out in any
case, especially if they are frustrated by having to wait in heavy
traffic.

The use of terms such as 'Stealth Cyclist' are simply part of the
ongoing battle to push responsibility for 'road safety' away from
drivers and onto vulnerable road users.

The depths to which the 'motor lobby' and their supporters in the
media will go to in order to promote what Robert Davis in 'Death on
the Streets' has called 'The conspicuity con' is staggering. I even
know of cases where drivers have claimed a cyclist they have killed
was 'invisible' BECAUSE the cyclist was wearing bright yellow high
visbility jackets on the basis it was sunny and the sun is also
yellow, ergo yollow things will be invisible on a sunny day!
Similarly, earlier this year a driver who drove onto a cycle path
killing 2 cyclists and ripping the leg off another had the gall to
claim it was the cyclists fault because they were using powerful front
lights that 'confused' them!

In ,
Chris Malcolm typed:

Not so, just a combination of two simple facts. The first is that
problem isn't motorist's eyesight, it's their attention, what they
care about. Wear as much illumination as you like, it won't make
motorists care any more about what happens to you. "I didn't see the
cyclist" is a euphemism for "Cyclists are an inferior form of road
life and ought to get out of my way."

Funny, though, I've definitely noticed people also SMIDSY white vans,
presumably on the assumption that they're a lower form of life. I noticed
people joining roundabouts in front of me when I was circulating in one, as
well.

A

Lecker, lecker.


? (Do I really want to know I wonder?)


Sorry, it's German for 'tasty, tasty'.

Kann ich bitte de zitrone torte haben?

12 years since I failed GCSE German, and I've still got the magic!

Cheers

Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk

I even
know of cases where drivers have claimed a cyclist they have killed
was 'invisible' BECAUSE the cyclist was wearing bright yellow high
visbility jackets on the basis it was sunny and the sun is also
yellow, ergo yollow things will be invisible on a sunny day!

Makes sense to me!

It's a shame this is such a serious topic, because otherwise it would be
bloody hilarious.

Cheers

Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk

"Michael MacClancy" writes:

"Howard" wrote in message
om...

It seems to me that in order to be a genuinely stealthy cyclist one
needs to put at least £100 worth of high power halogen lighting onto
ones bike. I find doing so renders me (supposedly) invisible to many
drivers.

Oh, that's interesting. Why don't you give us a few examples of instances
when drivers have failed to see you with your £100 worth of high power
halogen lighting? (You do need to turn them on, you know!) How often does
this happen to you? 5 times/ride, every ride, once every 5 rides, once in a
blue moon, days with the letter 'z' in them? What proportion of drivers
fail to see you? 90%, 50%, 20%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.005%?

Drivers regularly say they don't see cyclists and, more significantly,
_drive_ as if they don't, despite plenty of lights. It's well and
repeatedly documented. Probably 20%, certainly at least 5%, and it
only takes one to kill you. Mind you, against the clutter of lighting
on a city street at rush hour in the rain, the relatively feeble
lights of a legally lit bicycle can be hard to pick out. The roads
would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the
maximum candlepower it was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up
area - the real problem in urban situations in difficult weather is
glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

(Chris Malcolm) writes:

Not so, just a combination of two simple facts. The first is that
problem isn't motorist's eyesight, it's their attention, what they
care about. Wear as much illumination as you like, it won't make
motorists care any more about what happens to you. "I didn't see the
cyclist" is a euphemism for "Cyclists are an inferior form of road
life and ought to get out of my way."

I think that's unfair. I think what motorists really do, when
assessing the risk of bumping into something, is think about what it
might do to their paintwork. Snowploughs and armoured vans have a
relatively low SMIDSY index, even considering their very large visual
area. Nobody thinks they can win an argument with a snow plough, so
they don't start one. By contrast, hitting a cyclist is likely to have
little consequence for your paintwork, which is why cyclists have such
a high SMIDSY index.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:19:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

Does aggressive anti-speed campaigning tend to reduce road safety to the
single issue of whether motorists are exceeding the speed limit or not? I
am frankly inclined to think it does,

You are Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith & I Claim My Five Pounds ;-)

I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed
campaigning. Speeding is illegal, and if you do it you may well get
nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera. Message over. I've
seen more capiagns against drink-driving than I ever have against
speeding, and there's no suggestion that this reduces road safety to
the single issue of whether you're ****ed or not.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote:
I think that's unfair. I think what motorists really do, when
assessing the risk of bumping into something, is think about what it
might do to their paintwork. Snowploughs and armoured vans have a
relatively low SMIDSY index, even considering their very large visual
area. Nobody thinks they can win an argument with a snow plough, so
they don't start one. By contrast, hitting a cyclist is likely to have
little consequence for your paintwork, which is why cyclists have such
a high SMIDSY index.

Try telling that to the Fire Engine drivers.

SMIDSY appears to be universal, even if the object in question weighs
a significant number of tons more than you do, has flashing lights on
top, a loud siren, and it's going at 40 mph.

The local bus company found that their accident rate went down 15%
when they required their bus drivers to turn on their lights even in
the middle of the day. Some people apperently just *don't* look at
all. Or they turn their head in the relevant direction, but the image
that falls on their retina never actually makes it to the higher
processing centers in their brains (if they actually have any; the
evidence might suggest otherwise).

Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:19:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

Does aggressive anti-speed campaigning tend to reduce road safety to the
single issue of whether motorists are exceeding the speed limit or not?
I
am frankly inclined to think it does,

You are Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith & I Claim My Five Pounds ;-)


OMG Quoi? Moi? Hopefully not.

I don't think there is any such thing as "aggressive" anti-speed
campaigning. Speeding is illegal, and if you do it you may well get
nicked, possibly by plod, possibly by a camera. Message over.

Hmm, I don't think that's the message. 'Everyone' knows it's illegal, but
the statistics and practical experience seem to show a high percentage of
drivers, if not the majority at some time and in some place or another,
don't really care - at least until it hits their wallet. Even then the
chances of getting nicked are still pretty small, despite that fact that
it's become much higher with all the cameras. No, the message is 'Speed
Kills', and it seems to me to be almost the only road safety message we ever
hear.

seen more capiagns against drink-driving than I ever have against
speeding, and there's no suggestion that this reduces road safety to
the single issue of whether you're ****ed or not.


True, but that's such an old message now. When campaigning first started
about this, it may well have been that it appeared to reduce road safety to
the single issue of whether you were ****ed or not. I dunno - I wasn't even
in the UK when drink-driving campaigns first started in earnest. Maybe the
same thing will happen to anti-speed campaigning - by keeping on at it, it
will finally sink into general consciousness that it's undesirable,
anti-social, etc, and other campaigns will get more focus. But in the
meantime, by keeping on at it, it seems to be the only road safety message
there is - except at Christmas when we generally get a bit of the 'none for
the road' as well.

Rich

The local bus company found that their accident rate went down 15%
when they required their bus drivers to turn on their lights even in
the middle of the day. Some people apperently just *don't* look at
all. Or they turn their head in the relevant direction, but the image
that falls on their retina never actually makes it to the higher
processing centers in their brains (if they actually have any; the
evidence might suggest otherwise).

Some people really don't look, I was stopped at a red light on goodge
street,. W1 and a pedestrian crossing the road looking the other way for
oncoming traffic strolled straight into me. I think darwin has something to
say about people like that.