Auto Trader's #SwearToChange road safety campaign offers free reflective gear to cyclists - and sparks a social media backlash

Smartstu wrote:

C'mon - their heart is in the right place. Don't see anything wrong with the campaign. On my commute home down unlit country lanes in Norfolk - I'm lit up like a Christmas tree! I could choose to cycle in black clothing with only the bare minimum lights and then bemoan the nutter drivers for not seeing me...as I lie in a ditch. Rather not take any risks myself.

And I bet you that the feckers will still close pass you no matter how reflective and well lit you make yourself.

 I would be happier if motoring magazines wrote articles on advising their readership on their responsibilities as licensed road users towards those more vulnerable. Maybe even offer courses to their readership as well. As my dad said to me once I received my license- now was the time to learn how to drive. 

alansmurphy wrote:

As well as Auto Trader stopping selling grey, black and white cars, they should also sell no cars that can exceed the speed limit!

I often wonder what is the point of selling a car that can do 250 mph, when it wouldn't be legal to do that anywhere in the world...

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

As well as Auto Trader stopping selling grey, black and white cars, they should also sell no cars that can exceed the speed limit!

I often wonder what is the point of selling a car that can do 250 mph, when it wouldn't be legal to do that anywhere in the world...

Track days?

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

As well as Auto Trader stopping selling grey, black and white cars, they should also sell no cars that can exceed the speed limit!

I often wonder what is the point of selling a car that can do 250 mph, when it wouldn't be legal to do that anywhere in the world...

On that last point, there's a few countries in the world where that would be legal - a chunk of the autobahn network is still without an upper limit.

alexb wrote:

The only reason to wear high viz and reflectives is really to prevent lawyers from using their absence as a way to get the motorist off the hook. If drivers were paying proper attention, they would see what was in front of them wouldn't they?

Once your in hospital/dead, this arguement is kind of pointless because whatever those laywers argue, you are still in hospital/dead.

Perhaps you should accept that there are careless idiots out there and try to reduce the chances of being hit by one by wearing reasonably reflective kit and having decent lights.

alexb wrote:

The only reason to wear high viz and reflectives is really to prevent lawyers from using their absence as a way to get the motorist off the hook. If drivers were paying proper attention, they would see what was in front of them wouldn't they?

Another reason we need the review of road law promised in 2014.  It should not be a defence to say that the victim didn't take enough care, wasn't wearing hi-viz, helmet etc.  Drivers are the sole cause of the problems, and should not be allowed to pass the blame onto their victims.

burtthebike wrote:

alexb wrote:

The only reason to wear high viz and reflectives is really to prevent lawyers from using their absence as a way to get the motorist off the hook. If drivers were paying proper attention, they would see what was in front of them wouldn't they?

Another reason we need the review of road law promised in 2014.  It should not be a defence to say that the victim didn't take enough care, wasn't wearing hi-viz, helmet etc.  Drivers are the sole cause of the problems, and should not be allowed to pass the blame onto their victims.

Yep, you don’t hear of motorists being criticised for driving a vehicle that could have been better than the legal requirements...

- if you had been driving the latest Mercedes with it’s adaptive LED headlight system then the cyclist would have been clearly visible...
- it is the courts opinion that the collision could have been avoided if you had been driving a vehicle fitted with a collision avoidance system...
Etc...

joules1975 wrote:

While I understand the backlash here, there is definately a problem with some cyclists (or maybe 'people that happen to be on bikes') doing a good job of being invisible at night.

While the marketing campaigns etc could be seen as shifting blame, intentially or otherwise, particularly if being run by bodies/companies associated with motoring, it is important that people take at least some responsability for their own safety.

For example, when crossing a road, you take some responsability by looking both ways first and making a judgement as to when to cross. You don't simple step out without looking and assume everyone will stop to let you cross without being run over.

So why not take a little bit of responsability when cycling at night by ensuring you have decent lights and some sensibly sized and positioned reflective bits on your clothing.

Oh, and this isn't just an issue of cyclists being seen. I nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

I kind of agree, but to play devil's advocate, isn't there a good case for only cycling/driving at a speed so that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear? That would mean that when you sudenly saw the peds, you could hit the brakes and not hit them. There's a lot of victim blaming by motorists who go too fast for the conditions and then think that the problem is the pedestrians/cyclists who aren't "visible enough".

HawkinsPeter wrote:

joules1975 wrote:

While I understand the backlash here, there is definately a problem with some cyclists (or maybe 'people that happen to be on bikes') doing a good job of being invisible at night.

While the marketing campaigns etc could be seen as shifting blame, intentially or otherwise, particularly if being run by bodies/companies associated with motoring, it is important that people take at least some responsability for their own safety.

For example, when crossing a road, you take some responsability by looking both ways first and making a judgement as to when to cross. You don't simple step out without looking and assume everyone will stop to let you cross without being run over.

So why not take a little bit of responsability when cycling at night by ensuring you have decent lights and some sensibly sized and positioned reflective bits on your clothing.

Oh, and this isn't just an issue of cyclists being seen. I nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

I kind of agree, but to play devil's advocate, isn't there a good case for only cycling/driving at a speed so that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear? That would mean that when you sudenly saw the peds, you could hit the brakes and not hit them. There's a lot of victim blaming by motorists who go too fast for the conditions and then think that the problem is the pedestrians/cyclists who aren't "visible enough".

Absolutely, but while there are (plenty) of people out there driving at what they think is a sensible speed, but which isn't, I'm going to ensure that I'm doing a sensible amount to be visible to those idiots well before they are close enough to be a danger to me.

joules1975 wrote:

 nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

So you saw them when you were ten metres away, but still nearly rode straight into them? How fast were you riding (on a shared-use path, at night)? 

brooksby wrote:

joules1975 wrote:

 nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

So you saw them when you were ten metres away, but still nearly rode straight into them? How fast were you riding (on a shared-use path, at night)? 

20km/h would be very reasonable speed to assume on a bicycle.

But that would give you less than 2 seconds to react and come to a complete standstill to avoid a collision at 10 metres.

finkcreative wrote:

brooksby wrote:

joules1975 wrote:

 nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

So you saw them when you were ten metres away, but still nearly rode straight into them? How fast were you riding (on a shared-use path, at night)? 

 

20km/h would be very reasonable speed to assume on a bicycle.

But that would give you less than 2 seconds to react and come to a complete standstill to avoid a collision at 10 metres.

 

Not quite. You'd have about 2 seconds if you continued travelling at 20kmh, but as soon as you start reducing speed, you have more time. It's probably easier to work with distances than times for this kind of analysis.

I found this site that allows you to work out stopping distances for bikes: https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

According to that, 20kmh (which is 12.43 mph) would give you a stopping distance of just under 3m on wet concrete, so even with a 1 second thinking time (you'd cover around 5m) you could still avoid an incident.

brooksby wrote:

joules1975 wrote:

 nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

So you saw them when you were ten metres away, but still nearly rode straight into them? How fast were you riding (on a shared-use path, at night)? 

I managed to stop in time just fine thanks.

I was riding at a speed that I thought was sensible, and this sort of backs up my point.

Yes, arguably I was riding too fast, and if I had hit the pedestrian it would at least in part, possibly entirely my fault fault).

By the same token, if I was riding along a street with poor lights, as was hit by a car, it could be argued that it was the cars fault, but I'd still be injured.

Therefore on road I take an element of responsibility to ensure that I am suitably, and those pedestrians, for their own safety, might be sensible to ensure that they are visible.

There are always idiots out there (in the example I gave, I may have been one of the idiots), so to reduce you chance of ending up in hospital/dead, shouldn't you take sensible measures?

joules1975 wrote:

While I understand the backlash here, there is definately a problem with some cyclists (or maybe 'people that happen to be on bikes') doing a good job of being invisible at night.

While the marketing campaigns etc could be seen as shifting blame, intentially or otherwise, particularly if being run by bodies/companies associated with motoring, it is important that people take at least some responsability for their own safety.

For example, when crossing a road, you take some responsability by looking both ways first and making a judgement as to when to cross. You don't simple step out without looking and assume everyone will stop to let you cross without being run over.

So why not take a little bit of responsability when cycling at night by ensuring you have decent lights and some sensibly sized and positioned reflective bits on your clothing.

Oh, and this isn't just an issue of cyclists being seen. I nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

Hmm, four words....'the Charlie Alliston case'...

Otherwise agree with the rest.

joules1975 wrote:

I nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.

I had a similar experience a few years back, riding at night on a local road, which had street lamps for part of it but not others, and  pavement on one side only.  I had a good front light, and was taking care, but nearly collided with two runners, running on the left,  so not able to see oncoming traffic, wearing black, nothing reflective,  on the side with no pavement, just after I went from the lit to the unlit section of road.  I only saw them because they had a dog with white patches.  I shouted in surprise, and managed to get around them, but I'm not sure how.

We need to get these stupid, dangerous, law breaking, arrogant pedestrians off the road, they just get in the way of legitimate road users.  And various other arguments culled from the vast opus of anti-cycling rhetoric.