Young cyclist killed

[Peter Clinch]

Will Cove wrote:

> I have seen several dozen not so small and not so dark animals that ended
> up as roadkill.

But was that because they were not seen, or jumped immediately into the
path of the car that struck them? having not previously been in the
track of the car? Crows eating roadkill are the only roadkill I can
think of that makes a habit of being on the road for any time longer
than as short as possible, and they are better camouflaged than a
cyclist and also small and unpopular enough that people aren't going to
worry /too/ much about missing them.

> You'd think that something the size of a medium dog with
> large, white stripes would be easy to spot - yet each year I see a dozen or
> more badgers that didn't make it.

Compared to a cyclist, a typical badger's knowledge of the conventions
of the road is, I suspect, rather limited.

> Recently I encountered a pedestrian so well stealthed that I didn't see him
> until he turned towards me and I caught sight of his face. He was on the
> footpath a few feet from the kerb at the time but I'm not sure I would have
> seen him even if he was closer because the backdrop was black asphalt.

You've missed the point again. Unless you were planning to drive along
the footpath that isn't where your perception is concentrated. In your
immediate area of perceived vision you will notice far more.

>> Though a person on a bike on an open road who isn't /actively/ hiding
>> *can* be seen. I know this, because I see lots of these people. I
>> think "numpty!", but I do see them, so they can be seen.
>
> Just because you see lots of them doesn't mean that some cannot be seen.
> You could pass two or three every night you drive without knowing they were
> there. You might assume that you've seen them all but you can't know for
> sure.

I can't, but by the same logic you can't come up with any hard figures
so it amounts to nothing but baseless speculation.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark Thompson]

> You're going to bet your life on that?

Others bet their lives on that, I drive in a way that means I don't take
them up on that bet.

When riding, my bike is fully lit.

As said (repeatedly) no one here advocates riding without lights.

> FYI, the minimum eyesight standard required for driving[1] isn't that
> brilliant, which means a lot of drivers have less than perfect vision.

I'm just on the wrong side of the borderline for that, so am able to say
with certainty that it does not cause a problem.

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
)
>
> Ever seen a small dark animal run across the track of your car on an
> unlit road?


Ah, but how do you know about the small dark animals you have not seen? What
proportion do you see?

pk

 

[p.k.]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>> You're going to bet your life on that?
>
> Others bet their lives on that, I drive in a way that means I don't
> take them up on that bet.
>
> When riding, my bike is fully lit.
>
> As said (repeatedly) no one here advocates riding without lights.
>
>> FYI, the minimum eyesight standard required for driving[1] isn't that
>> brilliant, which means a lot of drivers have less than perfect
>> vision.
>
> I'm just on the wrong side of the borderline for that, so am able to
> say with certainty that it does not cause a problem.


Eh?

Your eyesight is below the minimum yet you refer to your driving?

What am I missing?

pk

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> Ah, but how do you know about the small dark animals you have not seen? What
> proportion do you see?

I don't know, but since they are by going to be much, much harder to see
than something which Will claims is basically invisible and impossible
to see, and you can see any of them at all, that doesn't really detract
from the point as much as is being suggested.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

p.k. wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> You're going to bet your life on that?
>>
>> Others bet their lives on that, I drive in a way that means I don't
>> take them up on that bet.
>>
>> When riding, my bike is fully lit.
>>
>> As said (repeatedly) no one here advocates riding without lights.
>>
>>> FYI, the minimum eyesight standard required for driving[1] isn't
>>> that brilliant, which means a lot of drivers have less than perfect
>>> vision.
>>
>> I'm just on the wrong side of the borderline for that, so am able to
>> say with certainty that it does not cause a problem.
> Eh?
>
> Your eyesight is below the minimum yet you refer to your driving?
>
> What am I missing?

The fact that he wears glasses when driving?

A

 

[p.k.]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>> You're going to bet your life on that?
>>>
>>> Others bet their lives on that, I drive in a way that means I don't
>>> take them up on that bet.
>>>
>>> When riding, my bike is fully lit.
>>>
>>> As said (repeatedly) no one here advocates riding without lights.
>>>
>>>> FYI, the minimum eyesight standard required for driving[1] isn't
>>>> that brilliant, which means a lot of drivers have less than perfect
>>>> vision.
>>>
>>> I'm just on the wrong side of the borderline for that, so am able to
>>> say with certainty that it does not cause a problem.
>> Eh?
>>
>> Your eyesight is below the minimum yet you refer to your driving?
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> The fact that he wears glasses when driving?

Ah, I see (!), but the test only applies if wearing your normal specs so the
eyesight when driving must be (at least) just on the right side.

pk

 

[Paul Boyd]

p.k. said the following on 06/12/2006 14:11:

> Ah, I see (!), but the test only applies if wearing your normal specs so the
> eyesight when driving must be (at least) just on the right side.

Hopefully, but Mark doesn't mention that he wears glasses. I hope he
does whilst driving because that test is a minimum standard of vision.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Will Cove]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Recently I encountered a pedestrian so well stealthed that I didn't
>> see him until he turned towards me and I caught sight of his face. He
>> was on the footpath a few feet from the kerb at the time but I'm not
>> sure I would have seen him even if he was closer because the backdrop
>> was black asphalt.
>
> You've missed the point again. Unless you were planning to drive
> along the footpath that isn't where your perception is concentrated.
> In your immediate area of perceived vision you will notice far more.

Now you're worrying me. Do you not check your quarters when driving (or
riding for that)?

What if the person were walking towards the kerb with the intension of
crossing? For all I know, that could be the reason he turned around. Hazard
perception isn't just about seeing what's immediately in front of you, it's
about interpreting all around you to identify possible threats. A
pedestrian a few feet from the kerb is most definitely a possible threat
because he has potential to move into your path, and if you don't see that
pedestrian your hazard perception has failed.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Will Cove wrote:

> Now you're worrying me. Do you not check your quarters when driving (or
> riding for that)?

There is checking and there is having my primary concentration on. I do
not make a point of staring at pavements as I'm driving along, and I
doubt that you do either. Any cycle I come across on the same road will
be in my direct concentration area before s/he is in my peripheral
vision and is a primary concern rather than something that /may become/
a primary concern in time.

> What if the person were walking towards the kerb with the intension of
> crossing?

Then they are still not in the immediate bit of road I'm about to drive
over, unlike our notional cyclist.

That it is good that I see such a pedestrian on the pavement is not
something I'm disputing, but it isn't the point either. I should be
expected to see the same person /if they are in the road in the path of
my car/ whether or not they're wearing black as long as they're not
actively trying to avoid detection.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
> p.k. said the following on 06/12/2006 14:11:
>
> > Ah, I see (!), but the test only applies if wearing your normal specs so the
> > eyesight when driving must be (at least) just on the right side.
>
> Hopefully, but Mark doesn't mention that he wears glasses. I hope he
> does whilst driving because that test is a minimum standard of vision.
>
It's a pretty pointless test - it takes no account of peripheral vision,
night vision, colour blindness, depth perception ...

 

[Peter Headland]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Dunno about testing, but driving standards seem somewhat variable on a
> state-by-state basis.

My impression is its mostly a rural vs. urban thing. Drivers from rural
areas tend to be more mellow. Places like LA are lethal, but there are
lots of places in California where things are totally different. Some
states have a rural culture even in their cities (typically ones with a
large rural population and small cities).

--
Peter Headland

 

[Peter Headland]

Rob Morley wrote:
> > Once you have your license in the USA,
> > the only "test" you ever have to pass is an eyesight test and a
> > multiple-choice highway code test every 4(?) years. No road test.
> >
> Does that vary by state?

Not to my knowledge. The only reason I had to take a test here was
because they don't think a UK driving license is proof of competence.
Actually, they don't really think that, but they obviously can't simply
accept licenses from every country in the world, and it's easier to
have a blanket rule.

--
Peter Headland

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Eh?
>
> Your eyesight is below the minimum yet you refer to your driving?
>
> What am I missing?

As others pointed out, the fact that I wear glasses for driving!

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> Ever seen a small dark animal run across the track of your car on an
>> unlit road?
>
> Ah, but how do you know about the small dark animals you have not seen?
> What proportion do you see?

I've never hit an animal I haven't seen. I've killed a cat (once) and a
squirrel (once) both times because I was driving too fast, but I saw both
of them. I collided with a fox (once) which was dancing in falling snow
and suddenly darted towards the car - but I wasn't going very fast (near
white-out conditions) and I don't think the fox was injured; it certainly
ran away.

These days I refuse to take avoiding action for pheasants, but even then
I've never hit one I haven't at least seen.

So I'd say the proportion of animals I could potentially have hit that I've
seen is 100%.

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

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>>> FYI, the minimum eyesight standard required for driving[1] isn't that
>>> brilliant, which means a lot of drivers have less than perfect
>>> vision.
>>
>> I'm just on the wrong side of the borderline for that, so am able to
>> say with certainty that it does not cause a problem.
>
> Eh?
>
> Your eyesight is below the minimum yet you refer to your driving?
>
> What am I missing?

He needs glasses (and presumably uses them). I'm marginal for driving
without glasses, but very much prefer to drive with them.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Will Cove wrote:
>
>> I have seen several dozen not so small and not so dark animals that
>> ended up as roadkill.
>
> But was that because they were not seen, or jumped immediately into the
> path of the car that struck them? having not previously been in the
> track of the car? Crows eating roadkill are the only roadkill I can
> think of that makes a habit of being on the road for any time longer
> than as short as possible, and they are better camouflaged than a
> cyclist and also small and unpopular enough that people aren't going to
> worry /too/ much about missing them.

I honestly think that many drivers deliberately hit animals on the road. I
can think of no other reason for the number of dead badgers one sees.
Badgers are big animals with very distinctive markings, which don't move
particularly fast; it isn't difficult to avoid them.

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

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

 

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> I honestly think that many drivers deliberately hit animals on the
> road. I can think of no other reason for the number of dead badgers
> one sees. Badgers are big animals with very distinctive markings,
> which don't move particularly fast; it isn't difficult to avoid them.

Very sound advice is not to swerve or take any other drastic action when
faced with an animal suddenly appearing in the road infront of you.

Having his a dear in cumbria (it jumped over a wall and landed in front of
me in the dark) and a wart hog in Zimbabwe which decided that suicide was
preferable to momentary isoaltaion from family (again in the dark) I'd sgree
with the advice - neither dry stone walls not acacia trees make happy
stopping points.

pk

 

[Mike Sales]

"Will Cove" wrote in message
>
> It seems that Paul is wrong! It ****led me that a driver could be
> expected to possess powers of either clairvoyance or superhuman eyesight
> and so I searched deeper to find http://tinyurl.com/yko92x - which is
> case history from DfT in which Driving Without Due Care and Attention (or
> Careless Driving) is defined:
>
> "In summing up, the judge said that a person is guilty of Careless
> Driving if the driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable,
> prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case."
>
> So, if a reasonable, prudent and competent driver would not have seen a
> stealth cyclist or pedestrian in time then a driver who is involved in a
> collision with that person has committed no offence.
>
> However, pragmatically I suspect that we are all saying the same thing:
> that both drivers and cyclists/pedestrians need to take appropriate
> action. Drivers should be observant and travel at an appropriate speed
> while cyclists and pedestrians should take reasonable steps to ensure
> that they are visible.

Doesn't the Highway Code say,..."within the distance they can see to be
clear" ? If you can't see its clear, then make sure you can stop if the
darkness turns out to be stuffed with rocks, tree, pedestrian, escaped
elephant, broken car, or cyclist. If you truly believe that a cyclist can be
invisible in your headlights you should consider not driving at night.
Myself, as a non driver, I would be thankful and surprised if all motorists
obeyed the H.C. in this respect, whilst assuming that all the above would be
visible in car headlights.

Mike Sales

 

[Tim Woodall]

On 06 Dec 2006 10:00:18 GMT,
Will Cove <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "In summing up, the judge said that a person is guilty of Careless
> Driving if the driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable,
> prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case."
>
> So, if a reasonable, prudent and competent driver would not have seen a
> stealth cyclist or pedestrian in time then a driver who is involved in a
> collision with that person has committed no offence.
>
> However, pragmatically I suspect that we are all saying the same thing:
> that both drivers and cyclists/pedestrians need to take appropriate
> action. Drivers should be observant and travel at an appropriate speed
> while cyclists and pedestrians should take reasonable steps to ensure
> that they are visible.

The problem we've got is that as cyclists get better and better lit the
standard for the "reasonable and competent motorist" is falling because
rather than them being expected to see an unlit cyclist in the dark,
they now only expect to be able to see a lit, reflective cyclist in the
distance they can see to be clear. Ditto pedestrians.

IIUC, the requirement for cyclists to use rear lights came in around the
time of the WWII blackouts where motorists were required to drive with
cowled lights. After the motorists got their lights back they said
"That's good, we don't need to look as carefully now because the
cyclists are lit".

Yesterday I had to stop and wait when pulling out of a junction for an
unlit, black, car (about 8pm). I could still see it but it wasn't as
easy to see as if it had had it's lights on. Where are the calls for
cars to be fluorescent yellow?

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/