[Closed] I nearly killed a cyclist tonight.

Whilst I'm all in favour of people having good lights, and whilst I personally find dual carriageways to be [i]hugely[/i] problematic to cyclists' safety, I don't quite get the hero back-slapping going on. Surely not driving a car into someone at 70mph is the minimum we'd expect? It's not like they're a deer that suddenly sprang from the bushes, and don't forget that lights/batteries fail so unless you always ride with two lights I'd check your moral high ground*. I mean, it's great that no-one got killed here, but a certain Chris Rock sketch springs to mind.

(* Before you start, I do: one battery and one dyno, so ner ;))

allmountainventure - Member
Maybe he was forced to work late, maybe he got lost, [b]it got dark and got caught out without propper night gear.[/b]

Decent lights are really cheap, really effective & really light(not heavy). There is no reasonable reason not to have a set permanently attached to your bike.
As I mentioned on another recent post about lights, I have recently started riding with a group of roadies (friends of a friend) and it amazes me how they wheel out their expensive road bike, wearing their expensive shoes, top branded clothing and then have some lights that look like something from a 1995 school project with batteries from the same era. They just about cast a red glow, but aren't particularly visible.

I know a rider/mate who has a ribble road bike and lives near chester ... just away to find out if its him.

I guess the minimum legal standard for rear lights hasn't changed much since whenever. And some cyclists assume that meeting the legal standard should be enough. Have car rear lights got brighter, more prominent in comparison in recent years?

If that's happened, then it makes night cyclists using relatively faint lights less safe, as drivers do 'tune in' to light brightness and use it as a marker of distance.

Your overall point's right though - if you research and spend £££ on other bike kit, then you shouldn't neglect lights.

First of all, a massive "well done" to the OP. Your quick reactions possibly saved someones life. Ignore all the "frustrated dads" having a knock at you.

While the lights discussion is pertinent, it's also worth pointing out that reflectives weigh bugger all, don't run out of batteries and are usually even more visible than lights at a distance at night.

I was surprised how few of the cyclists that I saw out on Saturday were wearing all black kit and had no lights on an overcast, mizzly, drizzly, foggy day.

I had a few moments where I wondered why a car ahead of me was on the wrong side of the road as I couldn't see who or what they were overtaking.

[i]Concern for safety of the cyclist? I've rang them before due to seeing someone on a push bike riding with no lights on busy road. [/i]

I'm happy that they should be called if he's breaking the law but if I'm going to start phoning the police every time I see someone causing a safety concern I'd never get off the phone.

While the lights discussion is pertinent, it's also worth pointing out that reflectives weigh bugger all, don't run out of batteries and are usually even more visible than lights at a distance at night.

These are perhaps the most effective thing out there, IMHO;
[img] [/img]

Proper Scotchlite reflective, and when moving you are [i]clearly [/i] a cyclist, as the pedaling motion is so obvious. (Oh, and yes, that is my finely honed ankle modelling in the picture!)

CFH do you know of anywhere I can pick those up in Central London? Been meaning to get some for a while.

"[i]First of all, a massive "well done" to the OP. Your quick reactions possibly saved someones life. Ignore all the "frustrated dads" having a knock at you.[/i]"

You see, I understand this sentiment, and it's hard to argue that it's wrong as such. But really I think the thing here is to take a step back and think about priorities, because I think what this sort of statement covers up is a problematic state of affairs.

You see, most people will default to just ploughing on with the attitude - conscious or subconscious - that the road markings tell them which bit of tarmac they own and what speed is safe to do along it. Hence "your quick reactions saved a life", rather than "you just about managed to control the heavy, fast object for which you have responsibility".

And when you have an incident like this, when someone nearly dies, I don't buy the idea that it's fair to blame just one party. Certainly it's a problematic reaction to blame then when your own actions would cause a similar, potentially fatal, problem in other scenarios. I find it troubling that people don't react by thinking that the priority - over and above the time they take to get home from work - is that people should stay alive, and that perhaps the most important factor in that is for the driver of the lethal vehicle to decide that [url= http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-most-basic-respect/ ]not killing someone is the most important thing you will do today[/url].

So, yes, "well done". But perhaps, also, "could do better"?

Molly, showing as in stock in all the CycleSurgery branches in the City if you're near one (as you will be!). Well worth the money, IMHO.

OP, I know how it feels. Similar situ many years ago on a country lane with a cyclist with no lights, nothing reflective etc. Made me jump that's all, but was a good lesson for me.

reflectives weigh bugger all, don't run out of batteries and are usually even more visible than lights at a distance at night.

Ta CFH.

- Helmet point, null and void, leave that one for another thread.

- Riding a bicycle on a "Special Road" / "Trans European Highway"? Dunno, how many people are aware of the A55's designation and just how that affects the use of bicycles on it?
Bicycles are allowed on "Dual carriageways" in the UK, if you've got no information to tell you otherwise how are you supposed to know the road you are about to join is "special"? Failure of DFT / local authorities to adequately sign rights of way IMO...

Interestingly it's not listed [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motorways_in_the_United_Kingdom ]Here[/url]
it's apparently a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A55_road ][I]"dual carriageway primary route[/I][/url]...

So probably a poor choice to ride on a dual carriage way, but not an illegal one...

- Poor choice of clothing? Definitively fair to criticize the cyclist, and point it out to him for his own good. Yes I know its not a legal requirement, but it is a prudent measure for self preservation when cycling on the roads in poor light...

- Poor lighting, Again meeting the "minimum standard" (BS 6102 Parts 2 & 3) for reflectors and lights, generally isn't all that effective, not that I think compliance with these rather basic requirements is effectively "Policed" in the UK anyway.
It's another point where exceeding the minimum is a prudent self preservation measure, and advising this cyclist of his poor visibility on this point was also doing him a service IMO...

What is equally concerning (IMO) is that the Range Rover driver (from my reading of the OP's account) in his faster, heavier vehicle with a more elevated vantage point, failed to spot an upcoming potential hazard and allow the OP space to deal with it, and then apparently blamed the OP for a near miss, caused by this poorly illuminated cyclist, but perhaps also by an excess of speed and the RR following slightly too close?
But then it's a 2nd hand account of a split second event, and the details of these things are best known by those involved, not really mine (or any of our) place to comment...

At the end of the day OP it sounds like you encountered a bit of a bellend (they use all sorts of transport, including bicycles) and you handled it as well as could be expected TBH. Letting the fella know that He's not making himself adequately visible was the right thing, however he took it...

How many of us use reflectives on the bike?

Pretty much always have at least one Respro band on when commuting (as well as a full set of lights, obviously). For big rides, away from trail centres or for tracks and trails days of linking up bridleways etc, I usually have a rear helmet light and a Respro band on my Osprey as a "oops, got lost/caught out and am running late" insurance policy to cover those moments where one might end up on a road back later in the day or in really awful weather. Weighs next to nothing, so why not?

Road rides? Always have at the very least a decent rear light on the bike, regardless of the weather. Winter gear tends to have more reflective accents anyway (Overshoes, etc)

This, to a certain extent. Trouble is there are relatively few sections of the A55 which can be avoided using alternative minor roads, unless they've laid on something for cyclists since I last drove it, and obviously with a load of mountains in the way, detours would be massive. In a couple of places, the A55 is all you've got.

Most of the A55 can be avoided on a bike by using route 5 of The National cycle Network, a great mostly off road and quiet road route well signerd and looked after by us volunteers for Sustrans.

One of the few prohibition of cyclists and other road users is from old colwyn(rainbow bridge) to Llandudno Junction, due to the short in and out ramps and 50 mph speed limit, which the police seem to be unable to enforce with speed cameras or just patrols.

Well done to the O/P caling the police, hopefully they will keep an eye out for future stupid cyclists,before a fatality occurs,also if you see any discarded hi viz vests, perhaps take them home and wash them, and keep in vehicle and hand out to errant cyclists, i do, some say thanks and wear one, some just look blank .

This "special road" thing... the only one I can think off quickly is the A720 round Edinburgh and that has signs up clearly indicating that cyclists are prohibited.

I used to live in chester and dont recall if there were signs up on the A55 to say no cycling BUT I do know I'd have to be desperate/bonkers to think it was a sensible / viable road to cycle on. Even more so alone at night. Its mostly treated as a motorway sans hard shoulder. frankly 70mph is slow compared what many drivers do on that road!

The restricted sections of the A55 are very clearly signposted on huge hoardings. . . in TWO languages!

As project says, the NCN route 5 is also clearly signed. This parallels the expressway for the most part.

Derestriction occurs in the Bangor area, but even then a cyclist is likely to be stopped by police and 'advised' in no uncertain terms to remove themselves elsewhere.

[b]cookeaa[/b]: Very well said ^^

Cycled the road the full length many years ago just after it was opened, and the bit from Bangor to Conway is a race track seems narrow, no hard shoulder, very windy , but now route 5 runs parallel to it.

Cyling through the penmaenhead tunnels, youre almost deafened by the hoots of irish truckers horns,havent riden the conway tunnels as youre not allowed to sadly.

Well having read all the comments on here I can only say well done to the OP - you managed to avoid killing someone who seemed to be doing their best to put themselves in harms way.

To those saying he should have been driving slower or at least have been able to use some kind of psychic sense to "feel" for invisible road users, get real and stop trolling - if you are driving within the speed limit on an unlit road and there is something black in the middle of road that can't be picked up with your headlights then in 99% of the cases you will hit it.

Luckily the OP finally saw the red dot and was able to stop in time.

And no, a helmet wouldn't have saved him.

To those saying he should have been driving slower or at least have been able to use some kind of psychic sense to "feel" for invisible road users, get real and stop trolling - if you are driving within the speed limit on an unlit road and there is something black in the middle of road that can't be picked up with your headlights then in 99% of the cases you will hit it.

Not really trolling though is it?
It's a speed LIMIT - not a target. If you can't stop in the distance that you can see to be clear, you're going too fast. Sadly of course, everyone does this to a greater or lesser degree - think going round a bend at 40mph on a normal road for example.

I smashed an entire front suspension strut on the car when I hit a dead badger in the road once. Cracked the spring, broke the shock unit, and came fairly close to writing off the car. So basically, it was my fault for going faster than I could react in the distance that I could see.

"[i]if you are [s]driving within the speed limit[/s] ignoring Highway Code rule 126 on an unlit road and there is something black in the middle of road that can't be picked up with your headlights then in 99% of the cases you will hit it[/i]"

FTFY

10mph is within the speed limit and would mean you'd be unlikely to hit anything. Did you mean to say "if you're driving at or close to the speed limit regardless of conditions"?

Anyway, what is "something black that can't be picked up with headlights"? Is there something wrong with your headlights?

Anyway, what is "something black that can't be picked up with headlights"? Is there something wrong with your headlights?

"[i]Could be a black hole?[/i]"

Indeed, but presumably that's still identifiable as "not road" 🙂

Not really trolling though is it?
It's a speed LIMIT - not a target. If you can't stop in the distance that you can see to be clear, you're going too fast. Sadly of course, everyone does this to a greater or lesser degree - think going round a bend at 40mph on a normal road for example.

Yes, but the limit of what you can see in your headlights is about your stopping distance at 30mph. Who never excededs 30mph in the dark? Anyone at all never exceded 30mph on the motorway after sunset?

It's reasnoble to expect everyone to be following the highway code, and have reflectors/lights, therefore the distance you can 'see' could reasnobly be interpreted as the distance you can't see any lights/reflectors in. So at 70mph on an unlit DC you probably can see a 70mph stoppping distance of catseyes reflecting back at you, but not an unlit ninja within your 30mph stopping distance.

I didn't kill anyone on my way into work this morning.

was it [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094 ]this guy[/url]?

Crazy legs, its a good point but, as you indicate, most of us (rightly or wrongly) would travel at the speed limit on an unlit dual carriage way and around bends (although I do slow down in anticipation when a roadway narrows or when my view is obstructed by a curve).

And my apologies to those who do travel 10mph on unlit dual carriageways and motorways and those who can tell the difference between a black road and a someone dressed in black when travelling at speed - I guess there would be no point in a ninja trying to sneak up on you.

Sorry for sounding flippant but I wear reflective gear and have it on my bike along with goods lights for a reason, its because I want other road users to see me regardless of the conditions.

"[i]Yes, but the limit of what you can see in your headlights is about your stopping distance at 30mph. Who never excededs 30mph in the dark? Anyone at all never exceded 30mph on the motorway after sunset?[/i]"

Except, actually, motorways and fast DCs tend to be well illuminated when busy, whether by overhead lighting or by other vehicles - and when they're not busy enough for other light to fall, you can use main beam at least intermittently. It's very rare that you simply cannot see the road beyond a dipped beam envelope - and if you genuinely can't then should you really be doing 70?

The restricted sections of the A55 are very clearly signposted on huge hoardings. . . in TWO languages!

And What if he can't read English of Klingon?

I'm still a little confused as to whether or not this cyclist was allowed to be on this stretch of road or not...

Is there some explicit signage for that section?
Has this section been designated the "A55(M)"?

What's the actual score?

It's reasnoble to expect everyone to be following the highway code, and have reflectors/lights, therefore the distance you can 'see' could reasnobly be interpreted as the distance you can't see any lights/reflectors in. So at 70mph on an unlit DC you probably can see a 70mph stoppping distance of catseyes reflecting back at you, but not an unlit ninja within your 30mph stopping distance.

I think we have some selective highway code going on...
What about a pedestrian walking along the road no need for lights etc. I know the highway code says advisable to use reflectives, but simple fact is that they don't.

I seem to believe that this is why the CTC opposed the compulsory fitting of lights to bikes, it means drivers have an excuse for not looking where they are going.

[url= http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ ]http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/[/url]

have a read...

Only on STW could there be an argument about someone not killing a cyclist. And then some pious individuals try and suggest that, actually, its the motorist's fault for driving to fast on a fast dual carriageway road?

This is all down to personal responsibility i.e. The cyclist's choices in clothing and lighting.

From what I remember of the A55, outside of the towns, there is little ambient light / illumination at all.

Having ridden on a fast dual carriageway on a bright sunny day (A27 Eastwards towards Havant) I'll not be doing that anytime soon. It was frankly terrifying! Yes I may have a legal right to use it, but no thanks!

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!

This morning there was no shortage of CYCLING PROHIBITED signs on the A55.

Are we clear about that now?

It can be avoided, there is a National cycle route mentioned above and local roads and sections of seperate footway/cycle lane next to it.

Anything doing less than 25mph should have amber beacons as well as normal road lights (on the A55).

On the flip side if a car was driving down a cycle lane we wouldn't be arguing about how fast the bikes were going!

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!

This. Being in the right won't make you any less dead.

"Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD! "
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can't in this case.

"[i]This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD![/i]"

What, like driving into space you can't see without the ability to stop?

There's a lot of it about;

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094[/url]

[img] [/img]

Except, actually, motorways and fast DCs tend to be well illuminated when busy, whether by overhead lighting or by other vehicles - and when they're not busy enough for other light to fall, you can use main beam at least intermittently. It's very rare that you simply cannot see the road beyond a dipped beam envelope - and if you genuinely can't then should you really be doing 70?

So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting's usualy only arround junctions, and even then it's often turned off after midnight.

I used to drive Reading to Teeside almost weekly at some ungodly hours, the number of times when I was either not folloing another car or had an oncoming car (i.e. could put main beams on) but wasn't close enough to the car infront to iluminate all the space between me and them (and that would probably be within the 2 second rule anyway?), was probably precicely ZERO.

So either I'm a crap driver (I'd not claim to be above average, but that was another thread), or it's reasnoble to expect drivers to be doing 70mph with dipped beams on motorways and comparable DC's.

Yes Bez, spot on.
which in this the OP has demonstrated that he clearly was driving in a safe manner.
When he saw a hazard ahead he was able to react in good time.
The Rangie however, possibly only looking as far as the bumper of the car infront.

[url= http://www.roadsuk.com/network/special/ ]For cookeaa[/url]

Speshpaul - Member

"Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD! "
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can't in this case.

Bez - Member

"This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!"

What, like driving into space you can't see without the ability to stop?

"[i]So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting's usualy only arround junctions, and even then it's often turned off after midnight.[/i]"

Well, we're not talking about motorways, where cyclists, horses and pedestrians are prohibited.

Also we seem to have latched onto a figure of 30mph which someone has (unless there's a citation waiting in the wings) pulled out of thin air and is seemingly based on the idea that what's in your beam you can see and what isn't you can't, which is rarely actually the case.

So, I'm not sure I can answer your question. I'll try some others.

Do I drive at 30 on the motorway? No. Do I drive such that I could avoid a completely unexpected inanimate object in the middle of a dual carriageway? Hopefully, but I confess I wouldn't want to guarantee it. Do I drive such that I could avoid a legitimate vehicle with a significantly slower speed than me? I sincerely hope so, and I believe I do. Am I perfect? No. Do I sometimes make mistakes? Yes. Do I [i]first and foremost[/i] consider my [i]own[/i] behaviour if and when something bad nearly happens? Absolutely.

It's the last one that's key. I don't think enough people can truthfully answer yes to it.

Like I say, we're all capable of deciding that the most important thing is not to kill someone today.

I would have thought it was about taking REASONABLE steps to prevent killing someone.
You can't mitigate for EVERY possible scenario.
I would suggest that trying to avoid a poorly visible cyclist on an unlit road where they shouldn't have been in the first place (if indeed cyclists are not permitted) is one scenario.