Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/942544941250514944

RobertFoster

Meeting Rudolph coming towards you on a dark night would be very confusing.

Melodeon

RobertFoster wrote: »

Meeting Rudolph coming towards you on a dark night would be very confusing.

Doubly so because he has his red light on the front!

kirving

conkennedy wrote: »

Clearly, gctest50 you haven’t a clue about the rules of the road and how you use a roundabout.

To clarify, I didn’t need to break; I have the right of way, if you disagree, that further shows our ignorance. The courts ruled in my favour.

This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to dead cyclists.

"I didn't need to yield for the truck turning left, I have right of way and he should see me".

If you want to exploit your own vulnerability to prove a point and get some cash out of an insurance company, go ahead, but the next time it might mean you aren't coming home to you family. I'm a cyclist who has been injured by the way, and the vast majority of dangerous incidents that I see may legally lay the blame on the driver, but the cyclist has put themselves in a legally allowable, but othewise stupid position.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to dead cyclists.

"I didn't need to yield for the truck turning left, I have right of way and he should see me".

What truck turning left?

kirving

buffalo wrote: »

What truck turning left?

I was referring to the attitude of the previous poster who despite removing his hand from the brake lever to make a gesture before crashing, said "I didn't to brake, I have the right of way."

That's got to be one of the most incredibly stupid things I've ever read, and has all the hallmarks of someone looking for an insurance claim.

I see cyclists go up the left of trucks and cars approaching a junction all the time, and then hear about 'left-hooks' by cars causing injuries. Why put yourself in that situation? I don't and be had very few incidents ever.

Macy0161

Well when I was right hooked (by a car who decided to do a u turn out of the traffic jam), and when I've had a near miss left hook, the car wasn't actually indicating in either case. So I wouldn't necessarily assume a left hook means cyclist in the wrong.

Just on this, I think we've taken the wrong approach to hi viz. It was the clubs christmas treasure hunt last weekend - no issues with cars seeing me, giving me plenty of space, friendly beeps all around - it's not a builders vest we need to wear, it's a santa suit!

tomasrojo

There was a case, in the UK, I think, of a lollipop man being disciplined for wearing a Santa costume, as it obscured his hiviz uniform. Probably in this thread somewhere.

The point was made that he was more conspicuous dressed as Santa, IIRC.

conkennedy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I was referring to the attitude of the previous poster who despite removing his hand from the brake lever to make a gesture before crashing, said "I didn't to brake, I have the right of way."

I did break, but shouldn't have to break. The rules of the road are there to allow proper organised movement of traffic. If the motorist had 'played by the rules' there wouldn't have been an incident. Plus, it is illegal to stop on a roundabout. To quote that great phillosipher, Bart Simpsion "Damned if toy do, damned if you don't".

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That's got to be one of the most incredibly stupid things I've ever read, and has all the hallmarks of someone looking for an insurance claim.

Yep - we're all looking to get injured and take a trip to hospital because a) we all need a few bob, b) concussion is great fun and c) looking forward to residual stiffness and impaired movement in the neck

magicbastarder

conkennedy wrote: »

I did break, but shouldn't have to break.

assuming i'm thinking of the right video, the question here is not whether you shouldn't have had to brake, but whether you should have braked. from the video, it looks like you took your hand off the brake?

conkennedy

magicbastarder wrote: »

assuming i'm thinking of the right video, the question here is not whether you shouldn't have had to brake, but whether you should have braked. from the video, it looks like you took your hand off the brake?

I braked. The garmin data proved it. On approach to the roundabout I was doing 30km/h while crossing the while line I was down to 20km/h and at impact I was doing 15km/h.

I braked on apporach to the roundabout and constantly while on the roundabout.

Weepsie

Kevin Irving wrote: »

This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to dead cyclists.

"I didn't need to yield for the truck turning left, I have right of way and he should see me".

If you want to exploit your own vulnerability to prove a point and get some cash out of an insurance company, go ahead, but the next time it might mean you aren't coming home to you family. I'm a cyclist who has been injured by the way, and the vast majority of dangerous incidents that I see may legally lay the blame on the driver, but the cyclist has put themselves in a legally allowable, but othewise stupid position.

Please read through the posts before making generalisations, as there were a few on this topic.

kirving

conkennedy wrote: »

I did break, but shouldn't have to break. The rules of the road are there to allow proper organised movement of traffic. If the motorist had 'played by the rules' there wouldn't have been an incident. Plus, it is illegal to stop on a roundabout. To quote that great phillosipher, Bart Simpsion "Damned if toy do, damned if you don't".

I don't consider taking your hand off the brake lever to be effectively braking. Not only does it severely limit braking power to one wheel, you then can't brake fully on the other wheel without losing balance.

The motorist made a stupid mistake, you made it into an accident.

conkennedy wrote: »

Yep - we're all looking to get injured and take a trip to hospital because a) we all need a few bob, b) concussion is great fun and c) looking forward to residual stiffness and impaired movement in the neck

Funnily enough, I've had plenty of mountain biking tumbles where I've hurt myself and been fine a day or two later. There often seem to be residual injuries when insurance is involved.

Fighting Tao

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The motorist made a stupid mistake, you made it into an accident.

There is no such thing as an accident. Someone is always at fault.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've had plenty of mountain biking tumbles where I've hurt myself and been fine a day or two later. There often seem to be residual injuries when insurance is involved.

So all collisions are the same?

Weepsie

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The motorist made a stupid mistake, you made it into an accident.

The motorist made the mistake and the accident by entering the roundabout when they shouldn't have as there was already traffic there. Leave it at that please.

Any further on this is not necessary

kirving

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There is no such thing as an accident. Someone is always at fault.

More semantics and avoidance of the issue at hand. I agree however, someone is always at fault, and in this case I believe it's the cyclist.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So all collisions are the same?

They're not, but in 20 years of cycling around and countless falls for various reasons, most myself, I've seemed to recover remarkably well and have no residual injuries to speak of.

Weepsie wrote: »

The motorist made the mistake and the accident by entering the roundabout when they shouldn't have as there was already traffic there. Leave it at that please.

Any further on this is not necessary

I disagree, which seems to be cutting a bit close to the bone for some. I believe that the video posted shows a collision that was totally avoidable had the cyclist made an effort to do so.

Remember that this video was posted as an example of a cyclist not being seen. If it's not relevant discussion material, I think the video and all posts pertaining to it be removed also.

conkennedy

magicbastarder

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've had plenty of mountain biking tumbles where I've hurt myself and been fine a day or two later. There often seem to be residual injuries when insurance is involved.

uuhhhh... selection bias, anyone?
injuries which disappear after a few days don't end up with insurance cases, injuries which persist *do* end up featuring in insurance claims. who'd have thunk it?

plus, i'm bemused by the fact that because you've not suffered a serious injury, you seem to be suspicious of people who have. that's just a little weird.

CramCycle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

They're not, but in 20 years of cycling around and countless falls for various reasons, most myself, I've seemed to recover remarkably well and have no residual injuries to speak of.

I seen a friend of mine fall from a two story window and walk away without a scratch, another tripped on his shoelaces and broke his collarbone, I am not sure of your point.

Remember that this video was posted as an example of a cyclist not being seen. If it's not relevant discussion material, I think the video and all posts pertaining to it be removed also.

It is relevant but I think the point was we are getting into circular discussion. You appear that nothing will change your mind that the cyclist in the video is partially to blame, others disagree (I myself looked at it and am not sure what I would have done differently, considering videos often give the impression that you have more time to react than it feels like in real life). Hindsight is a wonderful thing that makes us all brilliant at knowing what we would have done and how we would have reacted.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I disagree, which seems to be cutting a bit close to the bone for some. I believe that the video posted shows a collision that was totally avoidable had the cyclist made an effort to do so.

I guess there's a sliding scale of 'effort' to be made in avoiding collisions - and everyone has their own place at drawing the line. Say you're approaching a crossroads with a green light, and you want to go straight through while "avoiding a collision". Do you:
a) dismount, and wait for the green man to cross
b) stop at the junction, look both ways to ensure there's no cross traffic breaking the red, then proceed
c) proceed through the green light because the way is clear as far as you can see
d) it's green, go go go! Sprint like Sagan!

You do c), and are hit by a car breaking the red light at speed from the side road. By your logic, the cyclist didn't do a or b, and therefore it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the cyclist made an effort to do so."

It's complete victim blaming, when the correct statement is that it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the person driving the car followed the rules of the road."

Granted, we can all take measures to avoid idiots - but where do you draw the line? Why are you putting the fault on the cyclist for not having quick enough reactions, and not blaming the driver who failed to yield?

tomasrojo

Time for Cyclists Dismount signs at every junction. Can't be too careful.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Time for Cyclists Dismount signs at every junction. Can't be too careful.

If it could save even one life...

kirving

CramCycle wrote: »

It is relevant but I think the point was we are getting into circular discussion. You appear that nothing will change your mind that the cyclist in the video is partially to blame, others disagree

The driver was partially to blame too, I didn't say otherwise, but in my opinion the cyclist made very little effort to stop once. Removing his hand from the brake lever demonstrates this. If it's like most bikes I've set up, the right side lever is the front brake and so provides the greatest braking power as the weight shifts forward. I can't fathom a reason why this wasn't used to it's full potential except for the fact the cyclist has a history of making Youtube videos of close passes and had the camera running at that point.

Dashcam drivers (I have one too) on Youtube consistently get closer than they need to to a collision in the hope of proving the other person wrong. Call my cynical if you like, but that's my observation.

buffalo wrote: »

I guess there's a sliding scale of 'effort' to be made in avoiding collisions - and everyone has their own place at drawing the line......

......You do c), and are hit by a car breaking the red light at speed from the side road. By your logic, the cyclist didn't do a or b, and therefore it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the cyclist made an effort to do so."

Of course you do C), I'm not a complete lunatic, just looking at things objectivity rather than an anti-motorist viewpoint at all times. I am a cyclist too.

buffalo wrote: »

It's complete victim blaming, when the correct statement is that it was "a collision that was totally avoidable had the person driving the car followed the rules of the road."

"Victim blaming" is an overused buzzword at this stage. Anyway, it's not the case here. If I'm driving along the road, come around a corner and see a car parked on a double yellow, I don't say "I don't need to brake, I have the right of way" and hit it. I do the very best I can to avoid the collision - whether I am legally required to or not. If I make a half-assed attempt to brake and hit the illegally parked car, then I would be partially to blame.

buffalo wrote: »

Granted, we can all take measures to avoid idiots - but where do you draw the line? Why are you putting the fault on the cyclist for not having quick enough reactions, and not blaming the driver who failed to yield?

Agreed, but I draw the line long long before the following scenario.....

1. Not having any awareness that the sun to the right hand side of the car may affect visibility out the right side window. This is a key point.
2. Spotting a car approaching a roundabout, not slowing down to any great extent (look at the brake levers)
3. Leaning into the turn rather rather than assessing the situation and considering that the car may continue
4. Removing your hand from the brake lever
5. Making a gesture in annoyance
6. Putting it back
7. Finally braking
8. Then crashing.

The next time, it may be a truck's wheels. If you want to argue with a truck, you might not get a chance to debate the outcome in court is the sad reality.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Time for Cyclists Dismount signs at every junction. Can't be too careful.

You are, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresenting what I said.

My point here is this, and it relates to visibility and hi-vis in general.

We are sharing the road. If we as cyclists live by the letter of the law and refuse to make allowances for poor driving, people not looking out for or seeing us, and continue to take an us-and-them approaching to sharing the road, then cyclists will continue to die. As I said before, although most deaths are the drivers fault, cyclist continue to put themselves in positions where their life is in the drivers hands.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

"Victim blaming" is an overused buzzword at this stage. Anyway, it's not the case here. If I'm driving along the road, come around a corner and see a car parked on a double yellow, I don't say "I don't need to brake, I have the right of way" and hit it. I do the very best I can to avoid the collision - whether I am legally required to or not. If I make a half-assed attempt to brake and hit the illegally parked car, then I would be partially to blame.

I don't remember seeing anything about right of way over parked cars. Citation needed there. However, it does say you should "always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear" according to the RotR. You haven't followed the RotR, you are to blame.

Again though, you've made it subjective - "I do the very best I can to avoid the collision". Who's the judge of what the best reaction is? I had a crash once where I avoided a car that pulled out in front of me by swerving around it. It was a split second reaction, and I then hit something else instead. I did my very best at the time, but in hindsight braking might've resulted in a lesser impact. Does my best fail the Kevin Irving test for fault?

conkennedy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

....but in my opinion....

This is the only thing you've said that makes sense. It's just your opinion. And only that, an opinion. It's not based on fact or evidence.

Evidence of which, first and foremost (which has been pointed out to you by other posters and moderators) that the motorist failed to yield which caused the accident.

A fact and evidence of which have been corroborated by the Gardaí - which they also pointed out the motorist failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Essentially, a hit and run and leaving me (unconscious) vulnerable to being run over by oncoming traffic.

You are way off topic on this. The discussion is on Hi-Vis. The argument is hi-vis doesn't make a difference as motorists are not bike-aware.

tomasrojo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

You are, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresenting what I said.

My point here is this, and it relates to visibility and hi-vis in general.

We are sharing the road. If we as cyclists live by the letter of the law and refuse to make allowances for poor driving, people not looking out for or seeing us, and continue to take an us-and-them approaching to sharing the road, then cyclists will continue to die. As I said before, although most deaths are the drivers fault, cyclist continue to put themselves in positions where their life is in the drivers hands.

I'm not 100% sure what point you are making. The bolded bit seems to be the main point (apart from maybe an unintended innuendo that a lot of cyclists are insurance scammers).

I rather favour discretion over valour, and like to dress up deference as courtesy. But you can classify almost any manoeuvre as "putting your life in drivers' hands". For example, a simple right turn at a junction. Why don't you simply wait at the side of the road until all traffic has gone past? Why don't you use the pedestrian crossing? Oh sure, you have the *right* to make a simple right turn after signalling and carefully manoeuvring, but that's no good to you when you're dead.

kirving

conkennedy wrote: »

This is the only thing you've said that makes sense. It's just your opinion. And only that, an opinion. It's not based on fact or evidence.

Evidence of which, first and foremost (which has been pointed out to you by other posters and moderators) that the motorist failed to yield which caused the accident.

A fact and evidence of which have been corroborated by the Gardaí - which they also pointed out the motorist failed to stop at the scene of an accident. Essentially, a hit and run and leaving me (unconscious) vulnerable to being run over by oncoming traffic.

You are way off topic on this. The discussion is on Hi-Vis. The argument is hi-vis doesn't make a difference as motorists are not bike-aware.

It's based on video evidence that was posted online and then in the thread -
I didn't bring it up. You haven't tackled the points I made on the video either, because I'm way too close to the truth. My assessment is that while the motorist initiated the event, you didn't make any reasonable effort to avoid it in the lead up to to it, or after you realised it was happening.

While the motorist was not bike-aware, you've got to remember to be car-aware.

buffalo wrote: »

I don't remember seeing anything about right of way over parked cars. Citation needed there. However, it does say you should "always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear" according to the RotR. You haven't followed the RotR, you are to blame.

And in the video posted, the cyclist could not stop in the distance he could see to be clear. I think it is absolutely reasonable to expect that the car may not see the cyclist due to the position of the sun and his speed.

Now the car SHOULD see him (day or night, all weather, whatever he's wearing), which is also a reasonable expectation - and the theme of this thread. The problem arises when the car doesn't see him, and the cyclist has put themselves in a difficult position because they expect the car to see them, and have left themselves with no escape route.

buffalo wrote: »

Again though, you've made it subjective - "I do the very best I can to avoid the collision". Who's the judge of what the best reaction is?

IN my view, removing your hand from the brake lever cannot possibly be construed as the best reaction. I think most people would agree.

Weepsie

Thread thoroughly derailed, please stop and keep it on topic or start a thread about braking distances or what's the natural reaction when you're going to crash....

ThisRegard

Impressive display by the horse. I want to see cows next. Can't quite promise I'll use bike lights when out walking though, and they might be a but pointless on a motorcycle.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Oh look what Mayo CoCo also tweeted, word for word. You'd think they were written by the same person and that there was some manufacturer of such items located in the county or something.

https://twitter.com/MayoCoCo/status/950781579667951617


(I've no idea why both these have shown up on my feed this afternooon edit: (I do now, the Office of Emergency Planning is retweeting them.)

conkennedy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Impressive display by the horse. I want to see cows next. Can't quite promise I'll use bike lights when out walking though, and they might be a but pointless on a motorcycle.

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/950744996847734784

Hmm... I'd be more concerned about the safety of the bloke on the bike with the kid. I had the same bell helmet when they came out in 1989!