Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

AlekSmart

Although deemed OT in this thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057179220

It is touched upon in this one,albeit for commercial reasons....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057179120

....Anybody else believe the issue is of enough relevance to merit an oul trawl for further expressions of interest...?

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Pedestrians and Cyclists will don Black Coats,Trousers,Hats,Boots and Gloves then stroll or wobble off on a BLACK bicycle,fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination.....Incredible thoroughness is often displayed to ensure that not a sniff of any bright colour is dispayed to other road-users....

No Pants

Is this during daytime or night time?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

No Pants wrote: »

Is this during daytime or night time?

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

No Pants

Miller Poor Slob wrote: »

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

Really? Please explain.

Dravokivich

No Pants wrote: »

Really? Please explain.

Something dull or dark just tends to get lost in the background.

patrickbrophy18

I don't see the need for highly visible clothing in broad daylight as any road user is generally hard to miss in these conditions. Provided that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are observant, everyone should be fine. Conversely, at night, it is highly advisable that cyclists wear high visibility jackets. I'm not sure why pedestrians would need high visibility clothing at night as they generally travel on the footpath. On the other hand, cyclist use the same tarmac as motorists. So, a lack of visibility at night is highly dangerous for them, pedestrians, motorists and of course, other cyclists. Pedestrians don't really need to worry about being visible. However, extra attention is needed when crossing the road. This holds true particularly in poorly lit areas. Nevertheless, where lighting is almost non-existent, I would encourage pedestrians to where high visibility clothing.

Del2005

If there's no footpath, usually no street lights either, then pedestrians should wear high viz and maybe carry a torch. Cyclists as road users should be showing lights front and rear, high viz would be optional.

During daylight it makes sod all difference. Motorbikes have been using DRLs for years and still don't get noticed, even HGVs are resorting to DRLs, as other road users either aren't paying enough attention or can't see*. No matter what a pedestrian or cyclist does during the day won't be of any benefit to them as the average motorist won't see them.



*Only ever having your eyes tested in your late teens to get your licence isn't good enough.

No Pants

Dravokivich wrote: »

Something dull or dark just tends to get lost in the background.

Ah, okay. So we're not talking about maybe the clothing keeping the owner warmer or drier, we're talking about benefits to others.

Cookie_Monster

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

I've lights on my bike for when they're needed, aside from that I've no interest in any kind of ugly reflective clothing, nor do I care what anyone thinks about what I'm wearing, it's none of their business.

AlekSmart in the linked thread wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Cyclists will don Black Coats,Trousers,Hats,Boots and Gloves then wobble off on a BLACK bicycle,fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination.....Incredible thoroughness is often displayed to ensure that not a sniff on any bright colour is dispayed to other road-users....

so? either it's dark enough to require lights in which case it doesn't matter or it's bright enough not to need lights, in which case it doesn't matter.

....Anybody else believe the issue is of enough relevance to merit an oul trawl for further expressions of interest...?

Nope, seems like just another cheap shot at non motorists using the roads.

Dravokivich

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

This gripe should be with motorists that have a head light or rear light out.

No Pants

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Right now I'm a motorist first, pedestrian second, runner third and cyclist fourth. As the days get longer and the weather (hopefully) better, I expect that order to change.

thebullkf

To answer op yes, though just as well you didn't post this in the cycling forum !! It's a fashion faux pas for 'real' cyclists. *rolls eyes.* tons of threads on it. I am pro high vis. For the obvious reason.

Seaswimmer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't see the need for highly visible clothing in broad daylight as any road user is generally hard to miss in these conditions. Provided that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are observant, everyone should be fine. Conversely, at night, it is highly advisable that cyclists wear high visibility jackets. I'm not sure why pedestrians would need high visibility clothing at night as they generally travel on the footpath. On the other hand, cyclist use the same tarmac as motorists. So, a lack of visibility at night is highly dangerous for them, pedestrians, motorists and of course, other cyclists. Pedestrians don't really need to worry about being visible. However, extra attention is needed when crossing the road. This holds true particularly in poorly lit areas. Nevertheless, where lighting is almost non-existent, I would encourage pedestrians to where high visibility clothing.

High visibility clothing is useless at night. Maybe you mean high visibility
clothing that may also have reflective material built in.

But again no substitute for good lighting..

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

ThisRegard

Miller Poor Slob wrote: »

Doesn't matter what time of day night it is, brighter clothes are better clothes.

So the same can be applied to cars ? Should it be mandatory for cars to be high vis ?

SeanW

ThisRegard wrote: »

So the same can be applied to cars ? Should it be mandatory for cars to be high vis ?

Cars already have big-azz lights.

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

Cars already have big-azz lights.

Only of use when they're switched on.

No Pants

ThisRegard wrote: »

Only of use when they're switched on.

And have working bulbs fitted.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Ah, okay. So we're not talking about maybe the clothing keeping the owner warmer or drier, we're talking about benefits to others.

I would have thought visibility is a benefit to the owner?

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Are you standing over this comment despite...

SeanW wrote: »

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

Are you standing over this comment despite...

SeanW wrote:

Could it possibly be that houses and trees are not on the road?

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

Irrelevant justification anyway. Plenty of incidents of people driving into trees and houses where caution wasn't exercised. So whether they're in the middle of the road or at the side of the road isn't all that relevant.

bk

The best way to reduce accidents with cyclists is by increasing the number of cyclists. Safety in numbers. The more cyclists out there, the more careful drivers are.

High-viz just makes people think cycling is less safe then it actually is and reduces the number of people who cycle. Notice how in Dutch cycling advertisements, they never show people wearing high-viz or helmets (and you never see anyone actually wearing them on the streets). Instead you see lovely women, wearing easy to cycle city bikes, wearing there ordinary every day clothes, no helmets or high-viz.

Cycling is shown as a fun and safe activity. And partly because of that (and other reasons too), 40% of people cycle to work every day in Amsterdam. We should be learning from them.

High-viz IMO gives a false sense of security and leads to people cycling in a dangerous manner at night.

A good high quality front and rare light is all that is needed at night. And there is really no excuse, you can get superb front and rare lights from dx.com for just €12 total.

I mean really good, extremely bright lights that you will be seen from very far away.

No Pants

Stark wrote: »

The boundary of the road generally isn't covered in hi-viz either.

It is sometimes marked in braille. :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Dravokivich wrote: »

This gripe should be with motorists that have a head light or rear light out.

nope, that's not the comparison in the OP. He's trying to single out people in dark clothes regardless of lights.

dark coloured fully lit cars are no different to dark clothed fully lit cyclists yet there are always calls for cyclists to be clad in high vis and nothing ever said about car colours.

Del2005

bk wrote: »

The best way to reduce accidents with cyclists is by increasing the number of cyclists. Safety in numbers. The more cyclists out there, the more cars there are.

High-viz just makes people think cycling is less safe then it actually is and reduces the number of people who cycle. Notice how in Dutch cycling advertisements, they never show people wearing high-viz or helmets (and you never see anyone actually wearing them on the streets). Instead you see lovely women, wearing easy to cycle city bikes, wearing there ordinary every day clothes, no helmets or high-viz.

Cycling is shown as a fun and safe activity. And partly because of that (and other reasons too), 40% of people cycle to work every day in Amsterdam. We should be learning from them.

High-viz IMO gives a false sense of security and leads to people cycling in a dangerous manner at night.

A good high quality front and rare light is all that is needed at night. And there is really no excuse, you can get superb front and rare lights from dx.com for just €12 total.

I mean really good, extremely bright lights that you will be seen from very far away.

They rarely have them aimed correctly and there's no easy dip function, still better that the ninjas. Some of them are too powerful for use with traffic around.

bk

Del2005 wrote: »

They rarely have them aimed correctly and there's no easy dip function, still better that the ninjas. Some of them are too powerful for use with traffic around.

Haha, now the bike lights are too bright!!!

Mad, there is no pleasing some people.

No Pants

AlekSmart wrote: »

fully expecting to arrive-alive at some exotic destination

Imagine that, the insolence.

Del2005

bk wrote: »

Haha, now the bike lights are too bright!!!

Mad, there is no pleasing some people.

It's about consideration of other road users. The other day I was stopped at traffic lights on the Outer Ring Road, there was a cyclist across the junction cycling the wrong way up the cycle path. I couldn't look to the opposite lights due to the power of his light and this was during the day. The lights are designed for riding unlit trails at night not cycling with other road users.

Skatedude

K, lets make it simple.
Dark car vs dark cyclist pedestrian = dead cyclist /pedestrian = scratches on car paintwork.

Are you really arguing this?

No Pants

Skatedude wrote: »

K, lets make it simple.
Dark car vs dark cyclist pedestrian = dead cyclist /pedestrian = scratches on car paintwork.

Are you really arguing this?

Absolutely not. The cyclists and pedestrians should take full responsibility for being mashed under the car and, with dying breath, apologise for any blood or brain matter that got on the paintwork.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Absolutely not. The cyclists and pedestrians should take full responsibility for being mashed under the car and, with dying breath, apologise for any blood or brain matter that got on the paintwork.

Entirely reasonable if the cyclist or pedestrian thinks they only need the same visibility as various OFF ROAD objects ...

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

How do motorists manage not to drive into trees and houses? They're not painted in high-vis. Could it be that caution is exercised?

Right now I'm a motorist first, pedestrian second, runner third and cyclist fourth. As the days get longer and the weather (hopefully) better, I expect that order to change.

Do many trees or houses move? maybe I'm just used to the static ones around here

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

Entirely reasonable if the cyclist or pedestrian thinks they only need the same visibility as various OFF ROAD objects ...

Why would one need more? If you can see the objects off the road, then you can see a cyclist or pedestrian (assuming the presence of lights at night) on the road in front of you.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Why would one need more? If you can see the objects off the road, then you can see a cyclist or pedestrian (assuming the presence of lights at night) on the road in front of you.

Trees don't have lights :pac:

You don't need to see objects off the road for the most part, you need to see things that are on the road. That's why cars have such big azz lights.

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

Trees don't have lights ...

Yet cyclists should do. So it should be easier.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Yet cyclists should do. So it should be easier.

So the fact that high viz makes cyclists easier to spot during daylight/dusk/night time hours isn't sufficent reason to recommend wearing high viz?


Note the term Hi Viz is refering to clothing that conforms to EN471 which includes provision for retroreflective capability.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... And what about all those people driving black cars...

I've lights on my bike for when they're needed, aside from that I've no interest in any kind of ugly reflective clothing, nor do I care what anyone thinks about what I'm wearing, it's none of their business.


so? either it's dark enough to require lights in which case it doesn't matter or it's bright enough not to need lights, in which case it doesn't matter.


Nope, seems like just another cheap shot at non motorists using the roads.

Well I suppose you could take into consideration the thickness of cyclists when looking at them, far easier to see a thick cyclist than a thin one, perhaps thats why it's so much easier to see the thicker shape of a car regardless of its coloration

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

So the fact that high viz makes cyclists easier to spot during daylight/dusk/night time hours isn't sufficent reason to recommend wearing high viz?

No, as it can have unexpected consequences.

It can make cycling look more dangerous and less attractive then it actually is, which results in less people cycling, which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Also some cyclists then think it is enough to wear just some silly high-viz vest and they then don't use the much more effective bike lights.

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

And of course all cars should be covered in high-viz strips too, as cars parked on a road, don't have lights on and therefore require the same visibility!!

Another thing you need to be careful of is, if you start making everyone to start wearing high-viz, it can make it less effective as people see it so often, which can increase the danger to people who really need to use it (for instance Gardai standing in the middle of a road, road workmen, etc.).

This thread is almost as ridiculous as the thread about making the deer in phoenix park all wear reflective collars! It shows that we have our priorities all wrong here in Ireland.

It seems that we want to put the priority on the car so that people can drive as fast as they like and put all responsibility for safety on cyclists and pedestrians. It seems some people want to marginalise cyclists and pedestrians, to push them out of the way and off to the side, so motorists can drive as fast as they want, with as little care as they want.

This is completely the opposite approach to places like Amsterdam, where cyclists and pedestrians safety is put first and motorists must make way for them, not the other way around. In Holland, a driver is 100% responsible for any accidents, and rightfully so, if you hit someone, then you weren't driving with due care and attention.

People here in Ireland often seem to forget that there is a great deal of responsibility that comes with driving a massive multi-ton vehicle, that can travel at speeds up to 160km/h. That you are the one that needs to take the extra care while operating such a potentially deadly vehicle.

We really need to change our priorities here in Ireland. We really need to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians first and get as many people as possible cycling and walking.

whisky_galore

bk wrote: »

No, as it can have unexpected consequences.

It can make cycling look more dangerous and less attractive then it actually is, which results in less people cycling, which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Oh please what a load of old cobblers....a good proportion of the population wear hi vis on a daily basis be it for work or walking/jogging etc and don't see it as being marked out as a social pariah. OK a lot of it isn't catwalk high fashion, but some of the raincheaters and stuff doesn't look too bad and a pedestrian/cyclist is a way smaller object than a car in terms of being spotted, a hell of a lot more vunerable than a car to boot.

Imo hi vis, preferably with reflective strips, plus lights in poor light and hours of darkness is a sensible belt and braces.

bk wrote: »

Another thing you need to be careful of is, if you start making everyone to start wearing high-viz, it can make it less effective as people see it so often, which can increase the danger to people who really need to use it (for instance Gardai standing in the middle of a road, road workmen, etc.).

Oh sweet Jebus :rolleyes: so everyone else goes around in black jackets, or camo gear to look inconspicious?

bk wrote: »

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

You can't legislate for stupidity. You'll be suggesting we wear hi vis indoors next.

No Pants

whisky_galore wrote: »

Oh please what a load of old cobblers....a good proportion of the population wear hi vis on a daily basis be it for work or walking/jogging etc and don't see it as being marked out as a social pariah. OK a lot of it isn't catwalk high fashion, but some of the raincheaters and stuff doesn't look too bad and a pedestrian/cyclist is a way smaller object than a car in terms of being spotted, a hell of a lot more vunerable than a car to boot.

Oh sweet Jebus :rolleyes: so everyone else goes around in black jackets, or camo gear to look inconspicious?

You can't legislate for stupidity. You'll be suggesting we wear hi vis indoors next.

His points are backed up by research, if I remember correctly. Yours are...what exactly?

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I was in Dublin a few weeks back and was terrified driving around once the sun went down.
It was truly insane the risks some cyclists were taking. Recalling my younger days, I got around Dublin for 6 years on a bike..... without lights. Looking back now, I don't know how I wasn't hit.

This coming from someone who cycles for recreation on rural roads but drives for day-to-day usage

There is no logical reason not to have good lights, and if you want to wear hi-vis, fire ahead, if not, no worries

No Pants

Deleted User wrote: »

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I think most cyclists would support you in this.

hardCopy

Visibility is important, lights work. Fluorescent clothes are of little or no benefit and a waste of time.

Anything that discourages people hopping their bike should avoided. Other road users just need to take responsibility and look where they're going.

SeanW

bk wrote: »

No, as it can have unexpected consequences ... which actually makes cycling more dangerous due to the effect of safety in numbers.

Hahahaha ... oh wait you're serious. Funny, I didn't ever see you claiming that more restrictions on motorists would make anything less safe, probably because the argument is BS.

Also some cyclists then think it is enough to wear just some silly high-viz vest and they then don't use the much more effective bike lights.

So what? You say below that pedestrians and cyclists should have no responsibility for road safety, so what differene does it make?**

If you are suggesting cyclists should wear high-viz at all times, then I would suggest that all motorists and car passengers should too. After all a car often stops on the side of the road and the motorist and some passengers step out on the road, so by your logic surely they should be wearing high-viz on the road too?

Yes, best practice indicates that a motorist may have to pull over to make repairs, change a punctured tyre, charge a flat battery or something, so good practice would include carrying a hi-vis vest for such an eventuality. (It is the law in France AFAIK). Good practice would also suggest a cyclist, if for example cycling country regional roads late at night (where it would be unusual to see another car let alone a cyclist), are by virtue of differing speeds and considerable rarity, a hazard, and as such should be well advertised. Ditto for pedestrians. Not law, but good practice.

And of course all cars should be covered in high-viz strips too, as cars parked on a road, don't have lights on and therefore require the same visibility!!

Cars are big, shiny, and usually parked in parking bays that are well marked. You have no reason not to expect to see one, unless the owner of the parked car is parked illegally or dangerously.

This thread is almost as ridiculous as the thread about making the deer in phoenix park all wear reflective collars! It shows that we have our priorities all wrong here in Ireland.

I might agree about deer in a park, but the idea is not without precedent. In Lapland, herders are trialling reflective paint on reindeer antlers. Is that more evidence that just have it "all wrong in Ireland?"

And BTW, where did you establish that the people calling for reflective neckbands for deer in the Phoinex Park were reflecting the views of all Irish motorists?

It's really difficult to take any of this seriously?

It seems that we want to put the priority on the car so that people can drive as fast as they like and put all responsibility for safety on cyclists and pedestrians.

Are you on the same planet? Irish motorists are given plenty of responsibility. An eye watering mountain of taxes, a list of laws, rules and regulations that are quite severe and grow, in volume and onerousness, with each passing year. Licensing, insurance, penalty points, roadworthiness regulations. None of the applies to pedestrians and cyclists and for the most part I agree with that.

This is completely the opposite approach to places like Amsterdam, where cyclists and pedestrians safety is put first and motorists must make way for them, not the other way around. In Holland, a driver is 100% responsible for any accidents, and rightfully so, if you hit someone, then you weren't driving with due care and attention.

**Twice in as many days last week, I saw pedestrians running red-man lights MID CYCLE and forcing law abiding drivers (once, a bus, the other time, a series of cars) to slam on the brakes. It happened very quickly and I did not get a chance to analyse the mentality of the people involved, but what I saw would lead any reasonable person to conclude that they thought something like "Screw them, I'll just cross and make them stop for me regardless of the lights."

Your solution appears to be slow traffic down and have strict liability to reward and encourage such behaviour. I'd like to know why you think that is reasonable.

People here in Ireland often seem to forget that there is a great deal of responsibility that comes with driving a massive multi-ton vehicle, that can travel at speeds up to 160km/h. That you are the one that needs to take the extra care while operating such a potentially deadly vehicle.

Again, on what planet are motorists generally not aware of the responsibilities they're under?

We really need to change our priorities here in Ireland. We really need to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians first and get as many people as possible cycling and walking.

I agree in part - as a daily, hardcore pedestrian myself I want to encourage cyclists and pedestrians to cycle and walk, plenty. I just want them to do so with safety in mind and respect for other road users. I also think its fair to consider the interest of motorists, to have a sensible balance, these do not have to be mutually exclusive, at least not universally.

Marhay70

Deleted User wrote: »

I would just be happy with cyclists in general having lights.... any lights

I was in Dublin a few weeks back and was terrified driving around once the sun went down.
It was truly insane the risks some cyclists were taking. Recalling my younger days, I got around Dublin for 6 years on a bike..... without lights. Looking back now, I don't know how I wasn't hit.

This coming from someone who cycles for recreation on rural roads but drives for day-to-day usage

There is no logical reason not to have good lights, and if you want to wear hi-vis, fire ahead, if not, no worries

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

John_C

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

SeanW

Marhay70 wrote: »

I was driving the road from Delgany to Drummin before Christmas at about 7pm when a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him. Only when I had stopped did I see the reason, two cyclists abreast on the road and not a light between them, the irony was they both wore helmets.
Not only had these people no regard for their own safety but I, or the occupants of the other car could have been killed or seriously injured.
At least reflective clothing might have given some chance of seeing them.
It's high time cyclists were made to take responsibility for their own actions and at least required to carry some form of insurance.

Ah Marhay, me oul flower, you are obviously not a regular on C&T.

If you were, you'd "know" that both you and the other motorist were the real problem, being motorists you're both automatically guilty in the first place, doubly so for driving above "walking speed" which should be the national default limit. If you had hit a ninja pedestrian crossing againt a red man at the next junction, that would have been your fault too, for the same reasons. Expecting cyclists to share any responsibility for road safety, no matter how reasonable (e.g. registration plates, a credible penalty mechanism for lawbreaking, some demonstration of understanding of the rules of the road) would "discourage cycling" and should therefore not even be discussed. The objective is to have "strict liability" for these situations because we want slow cars down to 3MPH so that we can fill the roads with 6 year olds playing in traffic. Oh, and your motoring taxes should be doubled because you are an evil, carbon polluting pig.

Did I miss anything?

John_C wrote: »

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

I'm surprised you didn't blame the poster for "driving too fast" to react to a car swerving, let alone not seeing the ninja cyclists himself.

monument

Trolling won't be tolerated. At least a infraction will be given to the next attempt.

High-vis trolling even less so.

Anybody unaware of the rules should read them before posting again.

- Moderator

Marhay70

John_C wrote: »

& don't forget the driver of the other car. If he had to swerve to avoid a collision, he was going too fast.

I'm pretty sure he didn't see them, I didn't see them and they were between me and him. Anybody who has driven that road would agree, it's not a road for speeding on and anyway that doesn't excuse the cyclists from behaving irresponsibly.
Maybe confiscating bikes from offenders is the answer, like they do with untaxed cars.

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

Hahahaha ... oh wait you're serious. Funny, I didn't ever see you claiming that more restrictions on motorists would make anything less safe, probably because the argument is BS.

The concept of safety in numbers is well established for pedestrians and cyclists. There's no such concept of safety in numbers for motorists.

John_C

Marhay70 wrote: »

that doesn't excuse the cyclists from behaving irresponsibly.

I agree completely. It's also true that the cyclists behavior doesn't excuse the dangerous driving. There are three people breaking the law in the situation you described. Both cyclists should have had lights and the driver should have been able to stop his car in the distance he could see to be clear.

It reminds me of a quote from The Great Gatsby; A bad driver is safe until she meets another bad driver.

John_C

SeanW wrote: »

I'm surprised you didn't blame the poster for "driving too fast" to react to a car swerving

This is from the original post:

Marhay70 wrote: »

a car coming toward me suddenly veered into my path, I had to brake hard to avoid hitting him.

He reacted correctly to the danger. There was nothing wrong with his driving.