Yes, it’s that time of the year again, folks.
‘Tis the season for hi-vis and lights cycling safety debates, when usually well-meaning police forces, local authorities, and road safety organisations deliver one-sided messages, videos, and social media posts calling on cyclists to ‘be safe, be seen’.
To be honest, it’s the only time I’ll allow a debate about being surrounded by lights to take place in November (and yes, I am talking about you early Christmas tree enthusiasts – get a life).
Anyway, before I go all Grinch on the live blog, just last week we reported that Northumberland County Council issued a social media warning telling “all cyclists and pedestrians” that “during the autumn and winter months motorists take longer to notice you. Take extra care near or when crossing roads or try to wear something bright or reflective to help motorists see you.”
> Conservative councillor wades into cyclist hi-vis clothing discussion with "reprehensible" rant... says "Lycra louts" who ride in roads instead of cycle lanes "suffer the consequences"
While that particular post sent one local councillor scurrying off to the anti-cycling bingo hall to rant about “Lycra louts”, others suggested that asking motorists to take extra care and look out for vulnerable road users may be a more effective approach to keep the roads safe during winter.
And yesterday, we heard from Worcester resident Roy Clarke, who used his local paper’s letters page to urge cyclists to make sure their lights are working, otherwise drivers just can’t see them.
In a response to Clarke’s hi-vis call, Bike Worcester’s chair Dan Brothwell penned his own letter, jokingly asking “now the clocks are changing and as we go into darker days and nights, that drivers of all abilities check the headlights are working on their vehicles. It is difficult for drivers to see cyclists in the dark if their headlights are faulty.”
“Joking aside, this is an important issue,” he continued. “I agree with Roy that everyone cycling at night should have working front and rear lights in accordance with the Highway Code and the same applies to drivers.
“I’d also recommend everyone takes time to refresh their Highway Code knowledge and drive to test standard.
“When cycling my lights are on continuously (dynamo), bags have reflective panels, and I’m usually wearing bright colours. I’m still close passed by, on average, five per cent of drivers on my commute to work and witness illegal driving and parking whenever I’m travelling, notably speeding and phone use.”
Since appearing on yesterday’s live blog, Brothwell’s comments have sparked quite the debate on social media.
“Five per cent is better than 100 per cent in that case,” said Ady Suter on Twitter, in response to the cycling campaigner’s claimed rate of close passes per day.
“The hi-vis and lights help the more considerate drivers (that’s 95 per cent of them!) to see you in plenty of time and to prepare a safe pass. Better for everyone.”
However, not everyone was convinced of the powers of hi-vis.
“I get more close calls on the days I wear hi-vis sometimes,” said Les Jackson on Facebook.
Cycling campaigner Ruth Mayorcas added: “In broad daylight in high summer drivers still close pass.”
> Mandatory hi-vis for cyclists a “timely proposal” coming up to Christmas, say councillors
Others, meanwhile, were quick to criticise the often one-sided nature of these winter road safety calls.
“Can we have an annual call for drivers to not speed?” asked Joe Gardias.
“It’s amazing that drivers see cyclists running red lights. Any other time not so much,” added Dean Lewis.
Niall McFarland concurred: “The only cyclists that drivers manage to see are those with no lights, those on footpaths and those riding four abreast. They fail to see any others.”
“Hi-vis makes very little difference, knocked off several times, with bright lights and hi-vis jackets, and always told ‘sorry I didn’t see you’, because they’re not looking and shouldn’t be allowed on the road,” said Mark Kingsland.
“Hi-vis and lots of flashing lights don’t stop people driving into highway maintenance and emergency vehicles,” wrote Gareth Roberts.
“I’ll just stick to a light and wearing what I feel is appropriate for the time of day/year and weather.”
> Good Morning Britain asks should cyclists have to wear a "hi-vis uniform" to ride a bike?
“It’s ultimately nonsense,” Michael Brown said of the yearly call for hi-vis. “Drivers choose ‘not to see’ most cyclists because they aren’t paying attention.
“Using a decent bike light is more than enough – and I’ve experimented over the years with hyper-fluorescent jackets, normal hi-vis tops and other have deliberately tried wearing dark clothes whilst still having a good bike light. My own experience is none of it makes a difference.”
“Yep, it’s never been about what a cyclist is wearing,” echoed Sam. “Some drivers see you and don’t care.”
> Police stop cyclists without lights, and issue “lights and hi-vis rucksack instead of a fine” so they can “get home safely and legally”
According to Nick Edwards, that can sometimes also apply to other cyclists, too.
“I was actually hit by another cyclist tonight, he was riding down and me up, I was wearing hi-vis, bar mounted light, helmet light and he still didn’t see me until he hit me head on,” he said.
Meanwhile, Gav Marten argued that some bike lights can do more harm than good.
“I’ve still got spots in my vision from an inconsiderate cyclist and his night-sun light,” he wrote.
“Car headlights are designed with a beam spread and height cut (not perfect) but cheap Chinese bike lights are friggin’ blinding as they hit the eyeball direct with thousands of lumens!”
> Mandatory hi-vis had no influence on number of cyclists involved in collisions according to Italian study
Of course, Richard Littlejohn came along to provide some, ahem, ‘balance’ to proceedings.
“Maybe if cyclists were more predictable with their movements, everyone would be a lot safer,” he said. “I see so many cyclists weaving out of traffic, entering on the road from the pavement without looking.
To be fair and honest, it's not normally the ones with the proper kit, they’re normally following the rules of the road, it’s the rest. Almost hit one the other day that was on the pavement and then randomly decided to join the road!”
He could get a job at Northumberland County Council’s social media department with that stance…
Add new comment
43 comments
Close passing and rank bad driving have almost become the norm, to the point where I expect it and it doesn't shock me. What does shock me are the number of cars that pass and leave a cloud of marijuana smoke behind them, and this not an inner city issue, these are the leafy lanes of Cheshire, and many of the cars are driver only occupancy.....god help us!!
My wife went for a run at the w/e, at one point along a narrow road that is very much out of the way. There is no room to pass.
The driver came up behind her and revved his engine at her as she carried on. When she found a wide spot to move out, he shook his fist at her as he passed.
He was held up for 40 metres.
Serves her right for running without road tax.
Clearly she should have moved to the side and prostrated herself before her Betters…
I experience this quite often when out running. I follow the guidelines, running towards traffic and keep hard right. I am very visible too but still experience aggressive drivist. Some even swerve towards me. I have had to stand my ground plenty of times when there is just nowhere to go unless it is the hawthorn hedgerow. It is beyond ridiculous now that this immature and quite frankly bonkers behaviour is deemed acceptable.
Apparently the building of dedicated cycling paths will solve everything. The aggressive and immature motorists will go looking for victims in smaller cars instead. There already is a sort of anti small car brigade about, delighting in driving their huge SUVs at the "kiddie cars".
Meanwhile, councils will save money by building "shared" paths for cyclists and peds, allowing peds the opportunity (perhaps via a dedicated ped website like this one - "PavementPed") to moan about dangerous cyclists, demanding new pavements with barriers to keep the cyclists off 'em.
If you're not on the road with a car, I bet its driver is much less likely to swerve into your space *. Because you're not "in the way"! (Any more than they'd pull in front of a pedestrian on the pavement. And yes - somehow drivers do manage to kill quite a few people every year, on the pavement... "perfect the enemy of better", repeat).
If drivers want to go hunting other drivers, fine (is this really a thing or did you hear it from e.g. The Donald?) They are at slightly less risk to each other than they are to me on foot or on bike. Harm reduction. And of course the cops should have no problem arresting them for it, what with everyone having a licence plate.
I don't think just cycle paths will solve everything, but I do think they're a necessary (if not sufficient) part of "nice streets, liveable places" (and a lot of other potential benefits). At least I've seen nothing like this in the UK...
* Obviously it's gonna take UK drivers a generation - or several - to get their heads around that idea, just like in other parts of the world which have improved their streets...
Have there been any significant cases/reports from authorities of cycle lanes/LTNs causing delays to emergency services vehicles?
Not that I recall.
But...
"Family of woman who died blame parked cars for ambulance delay"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6k7n734jgo
What doesn't delay emergency services in general?
Cycle lanes
New cycle lanes
Covid-era cycling and walking schemes
Pop-up cycleways and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (according to NHS trusts)
"LTNs"
"blanket" reduction of (blanket) 30mph defaults to 20mph *
* Despite lots of concerns (ahead of it) that it would, or that somehow emergency services would suddenly have to keep to lower limits, or that it would delay staff getting in to fire stations and hospitals. Positive evidence (rather than "in the opinion of...") either way doesn't seem handy for a quick Google - and the Welsh Government is not aware of any evidence. Obviously absence isn't evidence - but you'd think given the fuss that this would have come out...
One thing that definitely doesn't hold up emergency vehicles is the volume of car traffic on the road or the autobesity of cars that has been going on for decades. Can't ever be them.
Such reports exist and despite being horseshit, become another means for drivers to frighten people into not having an LTN:
https://road.cc/content/forum/death-anecdote-exeter-ltn-303553
Given the change in the highway code and update on mobile phone use, is the driver who recorded the high usage of that cycle lane going to get an NIP for phone use behind the wheel?
Which London Borough is responsible for Kew Bridge? What do they have to say for themselves?
It'll be TfL
Yes, as it's part of the south circular so a red route. It was TfL that narrowed the western side pavement in 2021 in order to accommodate an extra traffic lane on the bridge, thereby making it unsafe to have a shared pavement on both sides - an arrangement which worked pretty well previously.
Ah, OK; fair enough.
Does TfL not hold any responsibility for active travel? I'd thought it did…
They do indeed, of course, and they are responsible for the shared pavement on the eastern side and so presumably for this absurd signage as well! Hopefully it's just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing and they will get it sorted soon. I am often wonder, in instances like this, why instead of bothering with expensive cycle lane installation, pavement widening or narrowing et cetera they can't simply say pavement on one side of the road exclusively for pedestrians and the other side exclusively for cyclists.
Two things that far-right, racist, xenophobic bloviator has never been in his life.
is that the Richard LIttlejohn who writes a column for the Daily Mail, often about migration issues, from his home in Florida?
Does he also support that British politician who seeks to interfere in the American election campaign? You know - Nigel Farage…
I beleive papers are being prepared in the US. courts, regarding interference claims against two labour employees who have been activley doing the same thing ahead of the American election. Should they be held in the same contempt as the guy you mentioned?
"According to U.S. rules, foreigners can volunteer on election campaigns but cannot make financial contributions, and the allegations of interference will hinge on whether Labour covered any activists' costs." - Reuters.
Whoooosh!
He also writes articles from there saying that people whom work from home are all skivers who should be back in the office
Oh Rendel, what happened to you? why do you throw insults at everyone who has a different opinion to yourself? RLJ could just be sharing his own personal experiences, which could easily be true; we've all seen the same things, its just that we don't consider it the norm, whereas to RLJ, he does. Does this make him all those nasty things you said? no, it doesn't.
It certainly doesn't make him not those things.
Nah, it's all the other things RLJ has said that make him all those nasty things.
What makes him all those "nasty" (a.k.a. true) things I said is that he drove a transgender schoolteacher to suicide by hounding them through his column, that he has routinely referred to homosexuals and homosexuality in his columns as "poofs", "poovery" "dykery" and "buggery", that he attacked Tom Daley and his husband for having children because it was "unnatural", because he claimed that the Hopscotch Asian Women's Centre, a charity supporting Asian women suffering from poverty and domestic abuse, was actually giving "taxpayer funded hopscotch lessons only to Asian women", because he has been censured by the Radio Authority for inciting violence, because he has suggested on air that the police should use flamethrowers against homosexuals demonstrating outside Parliament, because he wrote a "novel" that has been described as "a 400 page recruiting pamphlet for the British National Party", because he described a trip for Muslim schoolchildren to Legoland as "a jolly jihadi day out" and suggested that they would all blow themselves up when they got there, because he said of five murdered prostitutes, "in their line of 'work' the occasional death by strangulation is an occupational hazard"... I'm sure even you get the idea. The fact that you feel compelled to defend him speaks volumes about you.
Because of cause you must pass cyclists, there is no other option...
Not only that, but most roads are plenty wide enough to pass with plenty of space. Every road with two carriageways (one in each direction) is more than wide enough, as are plenty of single track country lanes if you pass slow and ensure you have your offside wheel close to the far edge. It really is only the smallest of lanes where you simply can't pass safely but then you also can't drive along them much faster than a bike will travel and these usually have passing places if the motorist just waits a few seconds.
But then you'd have to cross the white line in the middle and that's against the law isn't it, or something…
Pages