Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on both sides
of the pond!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In these dark winter months, I am car-pooling with a colleague to get to
work. Although I am impervious to cold, I am not happy about cycling
because of the poor visibility. My road to work is poorly lit, my eyesight
is bad, my balance perturbed by the dancing beam of my front light and my
glasses fog up every time I stop.

In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
aware of this.

Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with. Then many ride
entirely without lights, or just a little reflector. Great aurioles of
light surround the street lights and the headlights of the oncoming cars,
casting everything else around them into a pitch black shadow from the
glare. A few days ago, I was standing on a pavement waiting for a bus,
looking directly into the traffic. Two cyclists swooped right in front of
me - they were less than 30 feet from me before I even noticed them.

On mornings and even in the broad daylight of the lunch hour, there is
frequently a freezing smog that not only soups up the air but makes the
ground slippery. This smog can come on quite suddenly - all is clear, then
the car descends into a barely perceptible valley and the windscreen
empties like a movie screen with the projector turned off.

For night riding it has been my personal practise to wear a reflector vest
and blinkie lights on armbands. I have a LED headlight and a small red
backlight. But my lesson from this is that perhaps even I need to up the
ante. I shall get myself a yellow reflector parka from Glow Dog, and wear
that even as a pedestrian. And I need more blinkies, especially in the
back.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but for those of you who do cycle
in the dark, please make sure you are as visible as you can make
yourselves. Perhaps do a visibility test with your gear - ask family or a
neighbor for feedback on whether you can be seen and at what distance,
especially if you are sharing the road with cars and headlights.

Safe riding to all,

EFR
Ile de France

Pinky said:

Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on
both sides of the pond!

Ah. Troll.

Good one.

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Look at it this way - if you wanted to move around at night without
being spotted would you wear dark non-reflective clothes, carry no
lights, perhaps black up your face with burnt cork in the old fashioned
way, or would you wear bright light reflective clothing, carry bright
lamps etc etc? Clue to the answer - the first approach is called
"camouflage" (though I'm not sure how you spell it). Geddit!
Or to look at it another way - try drawing a black figure on black
paper. Er, how else can I explain this difficult concept!

How do you camouflage yourself to get into the Houses of Parliament?
wear bright fluorescent jackets etc.

If you ask the average motorist, they'll be able to tell you exactly
how many no-lights-dark-clothes-invisible-cant-see-the-buggers they saw
but won't remember a single one wearing an EN40whatever reflective
vest. Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.

Yes you are so right. There's more to camouflage than meets the eye!
Next time I cycle in town at night I intend to disguise myself as an
unlit stretch of tarmac so that motorists will be able to pick me out
amongst the reflective jackets.

The whole situation is kinda dumb, but it really comes down to clothing
design, why is it that winter coats are dark colours, when much of the
time, it's dark out. I work for a courier company, and the courier
jackets make use of reflective stripes of material, driving into a dark
parking area, you can see two stripes one about 1.2m and 1.7m off the
ground, it's easy to deduct that it's a person walking, especially since
the stripes are moving. Really all jackets and coats should require it,
hmmm, there is something to mention to clothing designers.....

As for cyclists, the key is to be as visible as possible, at all times,
and if that means wearing a neon orange safety vest, with reflective
yellow stripes, and having a steady red, and a blinking amber rear
light, and three headlights (locomotive style -- one in the middle up
high {on the bars}, and two down near the ground { one on each fork leg
} ), then so be it. BTW you can buy a mesh orange safety vest for as
little as $5, many cycling rain jackets have the reflective tape already
applied, a roll of reflective tape can be had from many places.

As for the people on bikes, where you get a person who dresses all in
black, and rides a reflectorless black bike at night with no lights,
well I believe the term is darwinism...... However I think that cycling
clubs and cycling groups and alternative transportation groups, and even
automotive groups, should get together to put on a Visible Cycling
campaign, to promote being visible when cycling.

W

in message <[email hidden]>, Wally

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when
there is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen
better than dark/non reflective ditto.

Quoted message said:

Uh-huh. And at night, there is effectively no light. So...

Umm, don't cars have headlights? Or are we talking about unlit cyclists
(true darksiders?) crashing into each other? :-)

Cars do indeed have headlights, which is why retro-reflectives are so
effective. However, even with headlights, the difference between a white
jacket and a black one is not easily distinguishable until you are much
too close.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'

Jeff Williams said:

I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.

You don't need to be able to identify a cyclist. You need to be able to
identify a road. If you can see the road then it is clear to proceed,
If you can see soemthing that is not road then it isn't. (Gross
simplification but otherwise true.)

...d

My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights. The
cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
gear. One of the cyclists was our son!

As a result of this shocking incident I started an online source of
cycle safety info - we also sell cycle conspicuity gear & other cycle
safety gadgets.

www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!

Chris Street (Happy Xmas Day)

David Martin said:

Jeff Williams said:

I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.

You don't need to be able to identify a cyclist. You need to be able to
identify a road. If you can see the road then it is clear to proceed,
If you can see soemthing that is not road then it isn't. (Gross
simplification but otherwise true.)

..d

True enough. However:

At a distance of 100m, a cyclist seen from behind occupies less than 1
degree of my field of view. Relative to a dark background, most
cyclists do not demonstrate significant movement in a very short period
of time. Given the profile of a cyclist seen from behind at a distance
of 100m or so, in the dark a cyclist can easily be mistaken for an
inanimate object.

As I noted in my prior post, cyclists tend to ride at the side of the
road, not in the middle of the lane. That doesn't mean a cyclist might
not swerve towards the middle of the lane to avoid a pothole, etc.

And don't forget that cyclists can be riding on crossroads. A cyclist
may not be on my road until shortly before I close in on the intersection.

If you'd rather not be seen, that's y'all's business. Personally, I'd
rather give the four-wheelers an opportunity to see me and, hopefully,
avoid me.

Jeff

"crabsallover" (clip) conspicuity (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comnspicuity?

"crabsallover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights. The
cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
gear. One of the cyclists was our son!

As a result of this shocking incident I started an online source of
cycle safety info - we also sell cycle conspicuity gear & other cycle
safety gadgets.

www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!

This cross-posting thing isn't always so bad. I see things here on your
site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack covers
[note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop; I'm
saying I'VE never seen them.]

So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED lights
for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle through patterns,
or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas" using red and green
spokes.

http://www.hokeyspokes.com/

These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid and
a conversation piece.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you ask the average motorist, they'll be able to tell you exactly
how many no-lights-dark-clothes-invisible-cant-see-the-buggers they saw
but won't remember a single one wearing an EN40whatever reflective
vest. Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.

Yes you are so right. There's more to camouflage than meets the eye!
Next time I cycle in town at night I intend to disguise myself as an
unlit stretch of tarmac so that motorists will be able to pick me out
amongst the reflective jackets.

I think cello-taping large denomination bills to frame tubes, fenders
and helmet would have the best chance for increasing ones visibility.
Most everyone is looking for money.
--
zk

Jeff

Some comments :-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

Quoted message said:

Rod King said:

Elisa

Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow

down

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.

When motorists say that a cyclist was invisible or they just didn't see

them

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is usually because they aren't looking. What you are really

complaining

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about was that there was little time to take avoiding action when seeing

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclist. That is a car speed issue rather than a cyslist visiblity

issue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists in flourescent jackets enable drivers to go faster. Hence when

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do hit a cyclists theor pedestrian they are more likely to kill them.

I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to

conduct

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
vision. That means GO SLOWER.

Merry Christmas

Rod King

Hey Rod.

While there is some truth to your viewpoint, it is not entirely correct.
Many cyclists ride without lights or reflectors while wearing dark
clothes.

Most actually do ride with reflectors. It is illegal in this country to sell
a complete bike
without pedal reflectors.

Quoted message said:

Typically, cyclist ride at the side of the road rather than in
the middle of the lane. All of this makes seeing a cyclist difficult at
night.

I ride at least 1m out from the side of the road, but I would hardly say it
was difficult to see an abject 1m wide by 2 m tall in front of you, even if
it is wearing dark clothing.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, drivers have no trouble seeing other motor vehicles
as they have lights and, to an extent, reflectors.

No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
distance.

Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take
reasonable steps to be visible.

Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at a
speed such that he can stop within seeing distance because he/she is in
control of the vehicle that will cause the damage to the cylist or
pedestrian. He/she is in control of the dangerous vehicle and therefore
bears a far greater responsibility to avoid anything in its path.

The cyclist has no similar responnibility. It does have a right to be on the
road regardless of the colour of the clothing. Whilst reflective clothing
makes it easier for the motorist to see the cylist it does not absolve the
motorist from the responsibility to avoid cyclists wearing unreflective
clothes.

Quoted message said:

No driver is willingly going to drive at, say, 10KMH on the off-chance
that there might be a stealth cyclist up ahead when, without a stealth
cyclist, 35KMH is a reasonable speed. To expect the driver to do so is
unreasonable.

Chance does not come into it. The driver should only drive at a speed that
is within the distance they can see. On full beam then they may be safe
doing 100 kph.

Quoted message said:

As a driver, I do not control other users of the road. I am responsible
for, and in control of, my own actions. I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.

You have just contradicted yourself!!!

Quoted message said:

As a cyclists, we do not control other users of the road. We are
responsible for, and in control of, our own actions. We first must put
ourselves in the right and then educate others. If we do those two
things, I am convinced our casualty rates will plummet.

There is nothing wrong about not wearing reflective clothing at night.
Casualty rates are primarily connected to driver actions rather than cyclist
actions. In the Netherlands most cyclists do not wear reflective clothing
yet they have far lower accident rates per km cycled than the UK. If we want
accident rates for cyclists to plummet then we need to get the differential
speed between the cyclist and motorist to also plummet in urban areas. In
the UK it is 3 times what it is in most Northern European towns. That means
a third of the time to notice and avoid cyclists. That's why 20mph urban
speed limits are so important.

Whilst disagreeing, let take the opportuunity to reflect on the fact that we
both enjoy cycling and want to promote it.

Have a good Christmas Jeff

Best wishes

Rod King

Quoted message said:

Merry Christmas and a Safe New Year

Jeff

The Wogster said:

As for the people on bikes, where you get a person who dresses all in
black, and rides a reflectorless black bike at night with no lights,
well I believe the term is darwinism......

No, it's ninjas. Bloody ninja cyclists going to conventions.

Ninjas!

--
Major M.D. Scrote

"crabsallover" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights.

Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.

They burn much energy and seldom actually increase security. Dazzling
road users is a real risk, as your wife found out. They make the night
sky all but invisible which is unfair to stargazers..

Cyclists can never win the glare generation game. In the dazzle of
security lights or badly adjusted headlights, reflective kit won't be of
much use, unfortunately.

We should stop escalating light levels, use our night vision and DRIVE SLOWLY!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Jeff Williams said:

At a distance of 100m, a cyclist seen from behind occupies less than 1
degree of my field of view. Relative to a dark background, most
cyclists do not demonstrate significant movement in a very short period
of time. Given the profile of a cyclist seen from behind at a distance
of 100m or so, in the dark a cyclist can easily be mistaken for an
inanimate object.

Which is why having two flashing LED lights with a distance between them
on your bike is so effective. Because they are almost invariably not in
phase, from a distance they create the illusion of something moving
around which is what you need to get someone's visual attention.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

We should stop escalating light levels, use our night vision and DRIVE SLOWLY!

That'll never catch on - its far too sensible ;-)

Merry Christmas

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.

Hey, that's my private members bill when they elect me:-)
A law requiring them to be shielded so they don't cause
a public nuisance outside an owner's property, or anywhere
to which the public have lawful right of access.

They're a serious nuisance when out walking, too.
And there's even one that comes into my field of vision
while sitting at my computer at home and makes life painful.

Bah, Humbug.

--
not me guv

Quoted message said:

So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
_something_ bright to be seen.

Besides my normal bike commute, I also walk my turbo-supercharged
Irish Setter in the morning before I pedal off to work, and in
the evening after my return from work. Perhaps 3-5 miles per day
(and maybe a 15 miler via MTB on a weekend!).

During the evening walk, I carry a small LED light and am constantly
surprised at how, even with a fairly bright light, I am apparently
not seen until the last minute as I and dog are preparing to dive
off the side of the road (a very dark, curvy road along the local
river course).

I now take to actually waving the light beam back and forth across
where I think the driver's head would be located in the oncoming
vehicle. Seems to do the trick in getting their attention.

My "iluminite" vest from Performance doesn't seem to do much any
more. Used to work quite well (sort of a bluish glow when hit by
car lights), but I think perhaps it's been washed too many times
and now "the glow is gone".

SMH

in message <[email hidden]>, Mike Kruger

(') said:

Quoted message said:

www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!

This cross-posting thing isn't always so bad. I see things here on
your site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack
covers
[note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop;
[I'm
saying I'VE never seen them.]

So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED
lights for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle
through patterns, or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas"
using red and green spokes.

http://www.hokeyspokes.com/

These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid
and a conversation piece.

Hey, /anything/ which gets drivers attention has to be good, and these
appeal to kids who are otherwise too concerned about their street-cred
to switch their lights on. They are available over here, although I've
never seen them in a LBS.

However, they're not really visible from behind. Something similar for
pedals would be exceeding useful.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

in message <[email hidden]>, Rod

King (') said:

Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at
a speed such that he can stop within seeing distance

Yes, (s)he _should_, but on the whole they don't. It's sometimes better
to be alive than to be right.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

in message <[email hidden]>, Helen Deborah Vecht

(') said:

"crabsallover" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights.

Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.

They burn much energy and seldom actually increase security. Dazzling
road users is a real risk, as your wife found out. They make the night
sky all but invisible which is unfair to stargazers..

ABSO-FLAMING-LUTELY! A light for a light leaves _everybody_ blind. What
we should be campaigning for is a strict (and quite low) maximum to the
amount of light /any/ vehicle or roadside light source can produce.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal