[Closed] Autumn's here (SMIDSY content)

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).

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

Still make them, but they were renamed to Groovy biscuits a few years ago due to...well....you know.

I still think flashing lights and high-vis attract attention, they'd only have to be able to see you out of the corner of their eye, then draw their attention, rather than 'seeing' you out the corner of their eye and not registering that youre there as you blend in.

I had a good pic from a horsey friend of a rider on a lane, and they were almost completely invisible (and this is a 10ft high, 400kg+ horse and rider), then the same locaion with a high vis vest.

Just checking in so that I can say I've taken part in the 12th Annual STW Winter-Hi-Viz-Debate thread.

If anyone needs me I'll be waiting for the lights thread version to get that out the way as well.

Given how recently we had this row, I'm still calling troll.

And I'm sorry my light hearted approach earlier twisted so many peoples tails.

In the meantime, I will continue racking up hundreds of miles a month riding on the road wearing bright/hiviz clothing and lit up like a Christmas tree day and night to do my best to reduce the risk of an idiot in a car hitting me.

The rest of you can take whatever approach you feel is best, until driver training, Police enforcement and proper sentencing reduce the risk we all face.

I've broken out the big [s]gunz.[/s] Gunners

Fixed (2-0)

The rest of you can take whatever approach you feel is best

I'll try and ride a bit faster, as that's likely to have just as much benefit* as wearing hi-viz.

* according to my personal guesswork, but that's the same principle which is being used to support hi-viz

In the meantime, I will continue racking up hundreds of miles a month riding on the road wearing bright/hiviz clothing and lit up like a Christmas tree day and night to do my best to reduce the risk of an idiot in a car hitting me.

And likewise, I will continue to rack up hundreds of miles a month wearing ordinary clothes, and lights when visibility is poor, in keeping with a low risk activity. I will also continue to drive without wearing a helmet and walk without wearing hi-viz.

[img] [/img]

That's bullshit! You have no proof!

Jamie say it isn't so

MoreCashThanDash - Member

Given how recently we had this row, I'm still calling troll.

And I'm sorry my light hearted approach earlier twisted so many peoples tails.

I'm not here 24/7

In the meantime, I will continue racking up hundreds of miles a month riding on the road wearing bright/hiviz clothing and lit up like a Christmas tree day and night to do my best to reduce the risk of an idiot in a car hitting me.

[img] [/img]