Near Miss of the Day 817: “Both drivers gave me a wide pass – shame about the cyclist coming the other way”

JimM777 wrote:

All very good comments, here's an alternative viewpoint http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/readthis.html.

Anyway, I will continue to use bright lights and hi-vis, daytime and otherwise, so that if I am unfortunate enough to be hit, and fortunate enough to survive, I will be content that I haven't given the powerful car insurance company even a sliver of opportunity to claim that I was partly at fault because I wasn't visible enough, and thereby reduce compensation.

I clicked around on that website and wasn't very impressed by it. I was surprised to see that it's relatively current (copyright 2021), though it looks like it's from the 1990s, so I suspect an aging author. However, dated design shouldn't detract from what's written, but I found that the writer has an insufferable over-riding political viewpoint on cyclists, whilst specifically saying that he doesn't.

His points on cyclist visibility by motorists makes the mistake of assigning driver fallibility to human nature and insisting that it cannot be changed, but then bangs on about how cyclists need to change their behaviour. He seems to be very self-satisfied with his views and doesn't offer any evidence to support his opinion that a hi-viz vest makes a cyclist visible whereas daytime lights don't.

I'm not aware of any court cases where lack of hi-viz was used to reduce compensation, so I hope your fears are unfounded, but by all means wear hi-viz if you find it comfortable and convenient.

I normally wear hi-vis ( with the exception of short trips to the shops, coming back from school etc in bright daylight).

I'm under no illusions that this makes me visible to motorists. Louder for them at the back... HI-VIS DOES NOT MAKE YOU VISIBLE TO DICKHEAD MOTORISTS THAT DON'T LOOK. Motorists that look do not need hi-vis to see you, just like they can see a grey car on an over-cast day that doesn't have daylight running lights. It's a myth to beat up cyclists and nothing more.

However, I second the insurance point, don't give them an inch to reduce a payout.

And I find it genuinely amusing to see the change in behaviour from some prick when he gave 'network rail bloke' some room and then realised he's just been overtaken by a girl and goes puce.

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

However, I second the insurance point, don't give them an inch to reduce a payout.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not convinced that payouts are reduced for that reason. It also snaps my cranks that cyclists should chase around trying to meet the arbitrary standards of motor insurance bean-counters. One day it'll be hi-viz, the next day running lights, then a flag on a pole and follow that up with some kind of audible announcement (BEEP BEEP BEEEEP WARNING THIS CYCLIST IS CONTINUING STRAIGHT ON BEEP BEEP BEEEP).

I feel like there have been examples but I couldn't put my hand on any right now. It may have been early settlement negotiation tactics... not that that is any better.

I agree with you but don't really want to have the fight with an arsehole insurance company (I work in the industry)

The performance art does make my partner feel better (they don't cycle often) and it does make for a splendid moral high ground when I get combatanyive with a dickhead that didn't look.

I had a quick look and it seems driver centric. It's the usual problem of pushing the responsibility on the vulnerable user and not improving driving standards.

Why aren't drivers taught to look properly and retested on this ?

I do use 4 rear lights in autumn/winter as I have to get home via a 60 road, no street lights and I don't trust drivers to look enough or drive at a suitable speed.

Bingo!  And just as we enter the season of "need more situational awareness" too!

I always ride with lights (and mostly hi-vis, although I'm sceptical hi-vis has any benefit at all). But even then, it's no guarantee...

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-663-van-driver-almost-hits-group-cycl...

It's no guarantee, but I don't understand why any cyclist would not want to make themselves as visible as possible

I just don't get this. People on bicycles are taller than most cars and just as visible (unless it is dark and they have no lights on). People in cars might not be looking for people on bicycles, but being bright yellow won't help there.

There was also that case where it was argued that high vis made the person on a bike less visible against the setting sun.

So, don't wear a hi-vis because for 2% of the time it makes you less visible - jeez you can't make up this shit.

Not quite the point I was trying to make. Whatever you wear people in cars will sometimes not see you (because they aren't looking, and they will use any excuse possible if something dreadful happens). If high vis was the answer then there wouldn't be such an issue with cars hitting people on bikes.

Yeah right, so the defendant in court says "It was because he was wearing a hi-vis that I didn't see him, your honour" and the judge says, "Yes, that sounds totally reasonable".

I'm off now, had enough of this nonsense

you might scoff, but that exact excuse has been used in court at least once already, and successfully I believe too, as in the judge/jury went along with it.

ultimately people wont see you if they stop looking for you.

Awavey wrote:

you might scoff, but that exact excuse has been used in court at least once already, and successfully I believe too, as in the judge/jury went along with it

That this comment has 4 upvotes shows that being a cyclist is no guarantee that you're not a dumbass. Here we have a claim unsupported by any reference whatsoever, where the poster by his own admission doesn't even know whether his claimed court case was by jury or not. And the "exact excuse" - really!

Yet some people think it's a great comment. No wonder guys like Trump get voted in when people will believe any shit as long as it lines up with what they want to believe.

https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019

Asked by Jim Davis, prosecuting, how she had failed to see him “right in front of your bonnet,” Powell replied: “The lighting coming through the trees and foliage on the side had created a flickering effect and I believe the high visibility jacket blended in with that.”

Quote:

the poster by his own admission doesn't even know whether his claimed court case was by jury

I take it you are not from the UK as judge/jury has a rather obvious meaning and usage.

JimM777 wrote:

Here we have a claim unsupported by any reference whatsoever, where the poster by his her own admission doesn't even know whether his her claimed court case was by jury or not. And the "exact excuse" - really!

TFTFY, and yes really, and as I dont claim to have an encyclopedia of UK court cases to hand to search through to provide an exact case reference to where it has been used, I cant give you the exact details.

but I remember its been mentioned in Road.cc coverage of cases several times where a defendant has claimed they hit the cyclist because the hi-viz they were wearing camouflaged them, however ludicrous you may think it, its certainly been an excuse thats been used in court, which was not rejected.

I remember hi viz yellow blending with the yellow of oil seed rape as to a reason for not seeing a very visible cyclist at some point too.

Wasn' there one up north where a car turning right "didn't see a cyclist" because of bushes on the side of the road. Pretty sure he was wearing visible clothing, although again, actual cause was driver wanted to maintain speed into new road so totally cut the corner and hit the cyclist. 

As others have already corrected you on several counts (which having followed this previously I agree with), I'll just say I sympathise.  I've been there.  Sometimes the partial information on the internet and your intuitions can send you to the wrong conclusion.

Well let's get some facts straight here. See https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/paul-james-councillor-cour...

Fact: in the case referred to the driver who knocked the guy off the bike was found guilty, so that her defence that the hi-vis was effectively not visible was rejected.

Fact: Her defence was not the "exact same" as the hypothetical case I gave.

Having got the facts out of the way, let's think of the real reason why some cyclists are so against the idea of wearing hi-vis gear. It's almost a certainty that the cyclists who are dead set against it are people who are wannabe racers who want to be seen to be looking at much like a pro racer as possible. They let their primitive emotional instinct to present a certain appearance to others override sensible alternatives - the similar situation can be seen in those people who drive massive 4x4s around city streets.

Considering you wrote:

Yeah right, so the defendant in court says "It was because he was wearing a hi-vis that I didn't see him, your honour"

That's what happened in the case, so what exactly are you arguing about ?

Last night a driver failed to see our fully marked car stopped with its blue and red flashing lights active. We were protecting a broken down vehicle in lane 1 on the A3 near Milford. The driver collided into our patrol car.

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1559814373656387584

As for deadset I think you'll find on here that people are deadset against PPE as the first thing to turn to and not as the last thing.

Her words might not have been exactly that (and as awavey mentioned, but her defence brought forward an expert witness that stated the cyclists attire would not have made him more visible as stated below.

"However, that evidence was contradicted by another expert, accident reconstruction consultant Victoria Eyers. She told the jury that in her opinion Mr James' position on the side of the road in the shadow of trees and foliage would have made him hard to spot given the brightness of the sun which was shining directly towards the oncoming drivers - even allowing for his hi-vis top."

So they claimed he was invisible even with his Hi-viz top which is the point initially made to you and you called posters "dumbass" for. You should know by now that to drivers, we are Schrodingers cyclists. Not seen and coming out of nowhere no matter what they are wearing when drivers collide with them, but very noticeable to every driver if travelling through a red or on the pavement, again no matter what they are wearing. 

High Viz is useless when the driver acts like a sheep and simply follows the vehicle in front in the mistaken belief that if they can overtake then I must be able to overtake too. The only view they had to the front at the point they committed to the manoeuvre was of the rear of the car in front.

I wear bright yellow, red or orange cycling apparel in daylight (and in one case all 3 colour together as fashion isn't my thing!) but car drivers have still managed to say "SMIDSY" because apparently I blended in to the background. At night it's two front and two or more rear lights plus a super reflective jacket if conditions are less than ideal and an illuminated ankle band if the road is busy. Again, I have been SMIDSYed. The common factor wasn't any lack of visibility on my part, it was a lack of looking on the car driver's part.

The legal requirement of a driver is that they make safe and effective observations. That means they need to look and look properly not just make a cursory glance or assume that because the car in front is pulling out you can too. In 37 years of driving, I have found that is key to avoiding accidents.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/19/people-should-wear-hi-viz-when-cycling

JimM777 wrote:

Having got the facts out of the way, let's think of the real reason why some cyclists are so against the idea of wearing hi-vis gear. It's almost a certainty that the cyclists who are dead set against it are people who are wannabe racers who want to be seen to be looking at much like a pro racer as possible. They let their primitive emotional instinct to present a certain appearance to others override sensible alternatives - the similar situation can be seen in those people who drive massive 4x4s around city streets.

Erm... <puts hand up> I don't wear any hi viz or retrofluoro clothing.

I wear a rain jacket if its raining, thicker clothing if its cold, and I never wear lycra, and nobody in their right mind would ever mistake me for a pro racer.

The "sensible alternative" to which you refer is wearing normal clothing, not "pro racer" chic and not "working by the side of a railway" fluoro safety wear.

My bike has a rear reflector, pedal reflectors, and if its raining or dark then I have a front light and a rear light.  That should be sufficient for any motorist with working eyeballs and a brain to see me (plus me being a six feet tall and slightly overweight human being on twelve kilos of metal with wheels!).

If hi viz is all that, how come cars come in all different colours and there isn't (that much) carnage on the roads?

Dumbass

Time for this again I think...