Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

😂 ok chief.

Sure take it up with the car makers and explain why they need to make the panels on a car hi viz 🤦‍♂️

It was a simple question. What are you trying to say.

If you can't explain the point of your own story, it's obvious there's isn't one.

How does the driver know what hit his car if the cyclist was completely invisible?

No reflectors? You just added that bit in now. It would really help if you gave the full story up front rather than leak it out in dribs and drabs. What happened to the mandatory reflectors that were fitted to the bike when it was sold?

Can't inflict the same damage, true, but can certainly raise the stakes such that even the slightest error from a driver results in their own serious injury or death.

It was contended earlier in the thread (in response to the hi-vis study I posted), that it it may have been biased due to attracting people who are more inclined to ride safely, as to perhaps explain why fewer cyclist-only accidents were reported when wearing hi-vis too.

A reasonable enough contention, in that cyclists (and all road users) do need to make responsible decisions to protect their own safety, and those decisions can be very effective at protecting themselves.

Back to the OP of this thread - cyclists responsibly for their own safety...

Not to you specifically, but I can't stand the response to a driver complaining about an "invisible cyclist" being "well if you saw them they weren't invisible". Yes there are drivers who notice notice nothing, but an otherwise attentive driver happening to catch a shadow moving across in front of them, is luck, and not much more. The response of putting 100% of the blame on the driver in that scenario is ridiculous. And I appreciate that most people here have no-time for cyclists with not lights.

I mentioned earlier that I worked on tech to eliminate blindspots. A little vague (I can't give too much information) but I recently travelled literally halfway around the world, specifically to look at technology who's main purpose is to detect cyclists and pedestrians - because the best visible light cameras in the world are not capable of detecting cyclists, at night, wearing matt black fabric. Almost zero light is reflected, so an entirely new technology is needed. Just for pedestrians. Black cars are reflect way more light (and are mandated by law to have reflectors too).

Humans are expected to drive cars using their eyes and ears only. That comes with responsibility, but also expectation that other road users will comply to their responsibilities too.

Even with perfect training, it's a physical impossibility that all drivers, can see all around them, at all times, in all conditions. I have no doubt that if I was suicidal enough, I could put myself in a position whereby an poster on this thread would knock me down in their car - and they would be held responsible.

In an environment where the roads are shared, more vulnerable road users need to be aware of a drivers limitations.

Bicycles are mandated by law to have reflectors too.

Given the expectation that road users need to make responsible decisions to protect their own safety, and that of others, can we expect motorists to fit hiviz panels to their vehicles, particularly dark vehicles. The cost of these hiviz is negligible, in the context of overall ownership and running costs of a vehicle.

All cars are fitted with reflectors, and lights, pretty much for the past 100 years.

I'm not advocating for mandatory hi-vis for cyclists anyway, so why do you keep going on about vehicle hi-vis?

I, and every emergency service the world over (and conversely, military), knows that brighter colors reflect more light. This aids drivers who are looking. It's not some panacea, or protection shield, and you can still be hit.

I can understand that, and also not believe that it should be mandatory, for anyone.

Ignorance of the law is no defence, as I'm sure you would agree, if it were laws which were applicable to motorists.

You are effectively saying that someone navigating our roads, at night, with no lights, and no retroreflective material, bears absolutely zero responsibility for the outcome of a collision, because they didn't know any better, and that the motorist should have seen them instead.

I'm reminding you that state of the art visible light cameras, with a 360 degree field of view, which never ever so much as blink, are not good enough to see a cyclist wearing matt black at night, but motorists are expected to do so.

Apologies, I read it as "not deliberately not obeying".

My point is that there are expectations of all road users, and limits to what can be reasonably expected from other road users. As a cyclist and driver, I'll always wait the extra few seconds for a cyclist to pass me on the left for example (and have been beep for doing so).

A cyclist who is A) riding in a predicable manner, not sitting in a blindspot, with a light, makes my job of looking out for them so so much easier than the cyclist who is B) wearing black, with no lights, who has just passed traffic behind me on the right, cut behind me, and now passing me on the left.

If I was to left hook the second guy, it would be my fault on paper, but they have created almost the entire situation which I now bear full responsibility for.

The bus driver did a great job here for example, but would it be reasonable to blame the driver had the woman been killed?

A human looking at the same image would see nothing. Headlights are limited too really, they can't be overly bright so as not to blind oncoming traffic When someone is wearing matt black at night, you're very much reliant on them passing in front of another light source so as to be seen.

As per the first post on the thread, leaving the scene is abhorrent, and there should be jail time for that alone. You'd have to question why he left the scent of course, but I really can't see much issue with victim blaming if you get hit from behind at 10.15 pm with no lights.

Is that to say it is easier to see a cyclist using your headlights, than if they had a light?

When it comes to being seen, emitting light is infinitely more efficient than 1) the car's headlights emitting light, scattering, 2) some light falling on a matt black coat, 3) a tiny percentage of that being reflected, 4) scattering, and 5) some of that reflected light landing in the driver eyes.

If you wear black clothing with almost zero reflectivity, what are the headlights supposed to reflect against?

Can you think of a reason, any reason at all..... why road signs, bollards, cats eyes, cones, bollards and registration plates use retro-reflective materials as opposed be being made from black cotton?

Drivers observation day and night is brutal?