[Closed] Avoid Being Killed by Watching Where You Are Going (And Wearing Sunglasses!)

"Dazzling sun" played a part in 2,233 [s]car crashes[/s] excuses for driving like a twunt

[i]"wearing dark clothes at night" played a part[/i] oh dear, sounds suspiciously like blaming the victim to me, either ped didn't look so got knocked over or it was the motorists fault but he tried to blame dark clothes.

Rise in cyclist KSI stats is worrying wonder if there are inline with rise in numbers cycling or not.

Road.cc have a bit more of a breakdown:

http://road.cc/content/news/67386-dft-release-2011-annual-report-road-casualties

Not surprisingly, cyclists seem to have more of an incentive to keep their eyes on the road than drivers.

The increase in casualties is in line with the increase in cycling, which does raise the question of where the much-vaunted "safety in numbers" effect is supposed to kick in.

don't think anyone said S-I-N would be immediate mrA

rush hours most dangerous for cycling, no surprises.
rise in drink driving, 280 deaths 🙁
presumably the 6,000+ none traffic cylists include some of us lot getting carried off a mountain/trail centre?

Hopefully it goes without saying that cycling crashes are very under-reported because there's no insurance companies etc involved- they'll only make the stats here where there's an injury or another person involved.

CTC's line is that safety-in-numbers effect is being overridden by the government being slack on motorists, which seems a bit feeble. If there's a connection between postponing the increase in fuel duty and cars hitting cyclists, it eludes me.

CTC having evangelical zeal despite the evidence SURELY NOT

Where is TJ when you need to make sense of stuff like this 😥

I totally applaud the efforts of anyone who campaigns for more cycling,a and yes there's a massive need to make roads safer for cycling, but when they talk about places like Holland and Denmark being safer to cycle as a result of the number of cyclists, they're missing a trick.

I know that it's traditional in these threads to link to a cycling blog which backs up your views, but this is well worth a read:

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/what-wont-bring-about-mass-cycling-6.html

Why would I be killed by watching where I was going? Or my sunglasses? Oh god I have 5 pairs of sunglasses!!! They're everywhere!!!

##reads post##

Oh right...

MrA,

I'm sure he makes some valid points, but I decided not to read any further after this point below.

Of much more interest are trends – changes which are consistent year after year. Here are some trends. In 2002 the annual total of ALL cycling casualties was 17,107 and in 2009 it was 17,064.

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim it's pointing out that it's stupid to not be visible at night

Did they cover twazzock pedestrians you walk on the wrong side of the roas where there is no pavement?

Increasingly seeing more of that around here. National speed limit road with no pavements, tall hedgerow either side, blind corner, pedestrain on your side unaware of your presence because they're not walking facing the direction of traffic.

which does raise the question of where the much-vaunted "safety in numbers" effect is supposed to kick in.

My understanding is that it is visible on more local levels, as many of the significant cycling increases are regional.

Nationally we've not really seen a significant increase - the actual numbers of people cycling regularly as transport are still pitifully low.

matt_bl - Member
MrA,

I'm sure he makes some valid points, but I decided not to read any further after this point below.

What's wrong with that? Yes I know the CTC will argue that increased casualty figures are down to an increase in cycling and distance cycled, but applying the safety-in-numbers logic you'd expect a drop, not a static figure.

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim...

Yes it is.

Just like saying a paraleticly drunk naked girl/boy perhaps shouldn't go and stand in the dark alley at 3am is, or saying the multimillionaire shouldn't go into the ghetto wearing all his jewellery whilst carrying a bundle of £50 notes and the latest notepad and iPhone.

You're a nasty nasty person. 😉

My understanding is that it is visible on more local levels, as many of the significant cycling increases are regional.

In that case London should be among the safest places, but it's oddly absent from the CTC's campaign literature.

MrTucker,
Here's a good twazzock pedestrian who was doing his best to get run down:
[url=

Safety in numbers you say? Good idea. I think I'll do that tonight actually. 6.30, on the South bank next to Waterloo bridge, anyone?

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim...

MrTucker,
Here's a good twazzock pedestrian who was doing his best to get run down:
pillock

Odd video. Could have been someone in need of help?

those were my thoughts - wanted help or to rob you I would have locked the doors but stopped personally.

Did a U turn where it was safe & went back to check. Seen hoofing away through hedgerow- think he was just off his face and thought that waving a car down for a lift was a bright move. Lucky it wasn't his last one.

I reckon he was a dandy highwayman and by courageously driving away at top speed you escaped being asked to stand and deliver.

Going for midnight walks on roads in the middle of nowhere some bright clothing would be a good idea. Nipping across the road to the pub/shop/your mates...seriously? Wearing dark clothes is contributory? cobblers.

Well exactly. Whether dark clothing is a factor depends on the circumstances. I know of one fatality a couple of miles from me where the deceased ped was walking in the middle of the road (rural, no pavements, no streetlights) with his back to traffic.

He was wearing a black jacket. I think with light or reflective clothing on he might still be alive today. This was around 2am after he had been at a social function all night. I don't know if alcohol was a factor.

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim it's pointing out that it's stupid to not be visible at night

In reality it makes little difference what colour your riding garment is, it's reflectivity and illumination that makes you visible to other road users.

In reality it makes little difference what colour your riding garment is, it's reflectivity and illumination that makes you visible to other road users.

But the dark clothing comment referred to peds not cyclists. Are you saying a white jacket isn't anymore visible at night than a black jacket?

From the linked BBC piece

but it was actually pedestrians who suffered the biggest rise in deaths last year, up 12% to 453.

More were seriously hurt too, up from 5,200 in 2010 to 5,454 last year.

"Pedestrian failed to look properly" was a factor in 59% of those accidents, and is easily the biggest single reason why pedestrians got hurt.

Parked vehicles blocking the view helped cause 16% of those injuries, and for 824 people who got hurt (about 4% of the total), "wearing dark clothes at night" played a part.

"Dazzling sun" played a part in 2,233 car crashes

Or more accurately perhaps, was the excuse in many insurance claims. A wasp in the car, a spider, anything like that can get you off running someone over.

But the dark clothing comment referred to peds not cyclists. Are you saying a white jacket isn't anymore visible at night than a black jacket?

You're correct; I was thinking cyclists when I wrote the post. But in answer to your question, naturally a white jacket would reflect more light than a black jacket but not sure whether it makes much difference when illuminated by a dipped beam which only seems to light-up clothing beneath the waist IME. Full beam is an entirely different matter, of course.

But seriously - white jackets ? Didn't we have enough of that in the eighties...

Why don't they require all cars to be fluorescent?

Surely that would hugely reduce the number of car-on-car SMIDSYs? 😉

I feel the need remind some of the posters here know that there's a resaon why ninja's and the SAS wear dark clothes at night.

That is all.

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim it's pointing out that it's stupid to not be visible at night

Cobblers! All my riding gear is black or dark colours. I don't believe the colour of your clothes makes one bit of difference. Both myself and the bike are however lit up like a christmas tree. Thats what gets you seen. Not dressing like Don Johnson....

[img] [/img]

😉

I feel the need remind some of the posters here know that there's a resaon why ninja's and the SAS wear dark clothes at night.

Is it so that if they get run over a bunch of uninformed strokers can write sneery things about them?

I feel the need remind some of the posters here know that there's a resaon why ninja's and the SAS wear dark clothes at night.

Why would ninjas or the SAS want to get run down?

For everyone who reckons that the answer to road safety is making everyone dress like they're on their way to a Klaxons concert, bear in mind that it's quite possible to "see" something but not have it processed by the brain. The "looked but failed to see" phenomenon is well-documented.

http://www.drivingriskmanagement.co.uk/looked-but-failed-to-see-errors

...there's a resaon why ninja's and the SAS wear dark clothes at night.

Even at night I believe it depends on terrain as to what the SAS wear. And aside from the 'fact' that ninja may never have existed at all (instead, I believe, being based on masked rogue samurai mercenaries or some such), it's only the Hollywood image that puts them togged-up to the eyeballs in hooded ebony pyjamas.

And neither ride bikes as far as I know. Well, at least not in action...

My mistake...

[img] [/img]

I struggle with long sentences.

when going outside after dark there are two well known hazards that the average person should mitigate for every time.

bad drivers and zombies.

you KNOW that you are likely to be run over by a stupid SMIDSY driver so you must help them to see you, and also help yourself avoid being inconveniently dead, by wearing something bright.

For Zombies, you need a chainsaw.

If you come off worse in a confrontation with either, without heeding this sound advice, you must accept some of the blame.

Increasingly seeing more of that around here. National speed limit road with no pavements, tall hedgerow either side, blind corner, pedestrain on your side unaware of your presence because they're not walking facing the direction of traffic.

If they could see you coming at 60mph, WTAF do you expect them to [i]do[/i]? Dive into the hedge? Not arguing that it's a particularly sensible place to be walking, more that it doesn't particularly matter which side of the road you're on in that scenario.

Nice pic. Not as stealth as some cycle commuters though. Personally wouldn't wear exclusively black or grey anywhere other than the hills. Whatever the rights and wrongs i would choose to help myself and take the excuses away. Black or grey outfit across a small surface area (eg a cyclist seen from behind) on a similar coloured background is not that helpful when you are sharing road space especially at dusk. Co existence on the road does require all types of user to give and take and do what they can to accommodate each other. The fact that most drivers are unhelpful twits should not stop cyclists doing what they can to protect themselves in my view.

Something no one mentions about Holland is the degree of segregation of cyclists from main traffic and the brilliant road design that many junctions have to control motor traffic (speed, direction and road position). My experience of dutch drivers while driving there on holiday last year was they are not that much nicer or competent than their British counterparts. With that in mind I certainly believe safety in numbers is in part at least driven by public infrastructure spending that is justified by the higher user numbers rather than exclusively volume itself. Of course where numbers and density is as high as it is in places like Amsterdam then car use falls but we are a looooong way off that!

Teasel FTFY

[img] [/img]

🙂

Superb! Loving the matching sheath...

I wonder what percentage of "failed to look properly" accidents could have been avoided by cyclist putting themselves in positions where they can be seen more easily and not up the inside of a truck turning left. I recon theres a good portion of blame on both sides. If every cyclist often drove and every driver was a regular cyclists, then there would be a little more mutual respect and understanding of each others road positioning, and the ability to predict each others actions that would inevitably make it all a little safter.

Lets face it, we are all drivers, as well as cyclists and none of us are perfect. I am obsessive about cleaning my windscreen (Anal, according to the mrs)and there are still times when sunlight/shadow combinations make sections of the road totally blind.

In any incident involving a bike and a car, the cyclist will always come worse off, so its in our best interests to avoid one at all costs. Blaming the driver isnt much use when you are dead!!

Blaming the driver isnt much use when you are dead!!

I recon theres a good portion of blame on both sides

*I've heard bike brake rotors can be pretty dangerous if you're not careful, keep fingers away from rotating objects people!

when going outside after dark there are two well known hazards that the average person should mitigate for every time.

bad drivers and zombies.

you KNOW that you are likely to be run over by a stupid SMIDSY driver so you must help them to see you, and also help yourself avoid being inconveniently dead, by wearing something bright.

For Zombies, you need a chainsaw.

If you come off worse in a confrontation with either, without heeding this sound advice, you must accept some of the blame.

Wearing dark clothes at night is not blaming the victim it's pointing out that it's stupid to not be visible at night

Strangely, when I cycled 200+ miles per week in That London I didn't have a single accident.
I put it down to wearing black clothes - if them drivers can't see you they can't run into you! It's a variation on "look where you want to go".

Cheers for hauling that back from page 1. I still stand by it....
SMIDSY as you were clad in black with no lights or reflective bits on an unlit road (Not quite as catchy)

SMIDSY as you were clad in black with no lights or reflective bits on an unlit road

Alcohol as a possible contributary factor I won't argue with, being pissed and falling infront of a moving vehicle certainly is contributary.

so should not be classed as contributory (in normal situations - yes there may be variations)

Honestly I think that each situation should be assessed by people in full possession of the facts and not generalised. If at the end it was the view of those people that x y or z was a factor people should listen to that. I was mostly trying to balance that sometimes people could do more to be visible along with drivers looking harder. As posted above somewhere the moral high ground isn't much use when your dead.

SMIDSY as you were clad in black with no lights or reflective bits on an unlit road (Not quite as catchy)

I did have lights at night - but this was in the days of rubbish bike lights.
I felt that the presence of a very heavy bike chain around my chest made some drivers think twice before cutting me up!

I was mostly trying to balance that sometimes people could do more to be visible along with drivers looking harder

Long and well written [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/swimming-with-sharks-the-truth-about-safety-in-numbers/ ]critique of 'safety in numbers'[/url]

I think everyone should have to wear one of these suits when outdoors.