This happens because people don’t check with both eyes and so can’t judge distance for small objects. It’s why people pull out on motorcyclists all the time.
Hopefully an education for her and the cyclist is ok long term. People make mistakes - herein I’m not saying she’s a bad person, but I categorically see no issue with her being held entirely at fault. The precedent should be that the vulnerable user is protected from the ABH or worse and I’d be happy with a presumed liability in every case. Arguing about contributory negligence would hold weight if the cyclist jumped a red light and then someone hit them.
The cyclist has no duty to wear high vis anymore than you have a duty to paint your car green. I use daytime lights nowadays because, sadly, this kind of thing is all too common and as much as I can have a moral viewpoint I don’t want to spend 6 months on crutches because someone couldn’t be bothered to take a second’s care.
Is this true ? During dark hours, I believe cyclists do have the duty to have lights on their bike and reflective equipment or clothes.
I never hit a cyclist, but I completely understand how that can happen - I’ve seen several times some dumb people with no lights, all black clothes and riding on a high speed road when it’s already completely dark.
Here it is (you only have the duty to have lights after dark) and not Hiviz. France had (and perhaps still do) a stupid law however, requiring cyclists when riding out of town after dark also to wear Hi Viz.
From the description of the incident I understand that the bike had no lights neither. So I struggle to understand why it’s a driver fault - if it was a car without lights at night, we wouldn’t have a discussion at all about who is responsible right ?
The other thing with bikes and lights is that there are no visibility standards for those lights.
So in Dutch law, it is mandatory to have lights on your bike if dark. But any light will do, even if hardly visible.
In the UK its still the responsibility to have lights if it was fully dark, or else the insurance company will wriggle out of any compensation claim by the cyclist, just not HiViz. That doesn’t stop some insurance companies however from trying to water claims down further on the lack of HI viz, but that’s not legal. If its 100% as the OP describes I am surprised at the UK insurance companies action.
It is not smart to go around on your bike in the dark with no lights.
However, you are still not invisible, it just requires more effort from drivers or a reduction in speed to see them.
Now, as a cyclist you have a natural tendency to be extra careful because you want to prevent death or injury.
However for a driver there is less motivation to go that extra mile not to hit a cyclist.
So what these laws are supposed to do is make it clear to drivers that they have a responsibility to take additional care not to hurt the weaker party.
When I ride my bike on a road, I like to think that I have the same rights as a car (although now living in New Zealand, it’s quite different from road culture in France…). But that also means that I have the same obligations, and one of those is to make sure I’m visible to other users of the road.
What you are saying is that the laws work the other way over there - basically putting all the responsibility on the driver. This is a bit like the laws for pedestrians in France - the result being that in the center of Paris, pedestrians don’t give a shit about red lights whatsoever.
Yes, agree that is a drawback of this system. Just like in a Democracy having liberties also gives you the liberty to do stupid things, but the alternative is not better.
The alternative here is an environment where pedestrians and cyclists don’t feel safe.
At least there is a natural incentive for cyclists and pedestrians not to do too stupid shit, since they still don’t want to die.
You only have to drive a car to see how invisible dark colours make you, plenty of serious roadies seem to love black ninja kit, very hard to spot, even harder at distance, its surprising how much difference a red flasher on the rear makes, it screams ‘Bike’ the rear flasher should be mandatory tbh.
I’ve been riding over 30 years now and a rear/front flasher with a Varia are my go to now, always wear a white helmet, bright colours in winter, accidents happen though but there is a lot a cyclist can do to mitigate possible incidents.
I’d agree that you’re obligated to yourself, your family and friends, and other road users to take reasonable steps to make yourself visible. But that doesn’t mean it should be the law. Partly because of liberty - do we really want to tell people what colour clothing they have to wear? Partly because of practicality - once something is law you have to start defining and applying it, and that comes with all sorts of unintended consequences. E.g. if we make lights mandatory, is there a minimum lumen count? Where do they have to be mounted? And partly because we already have a real problem with the attitude of many drivers towards many cyclists, and any law which shifts blame away from drivers towards cyclists is likely to make that problem worse.
Personally I always wear a helmet, always have a rear Varia in flash mode, nearly always have some bright colours in my kit and/or on the bike, and have a good front light which I’ll use in the dark or set to flashing if it’s a gloomy day or I’m riding on shadowed roads. But given that even with all those precautions I’m still routinely subjected to close passes and abuse by drivers who think they own the road, I certainly don’t want those drivers to have any more excuse to behave badly. They don’t bother to educate themselves on the speed limit, cyclists right to ride 2 abreast, not using the phone while driver, 1.5m safe passing width, etc but I guarantee you if there was a law passed requiring cyclists to wear hi viz clothing they’d read about it in the Daily Mail the next day!
I agree and have similar kit, there’s lots of strong arguments however why we shouldn’t. For instance, it makes people feel to comfortable about what they expect on the road and switch off mentally. When a driver come across a kid who maybe doesn’t have all that kit they dont know how to switch on again Some cyclists may feel secure in all that garb and fail to switch on too. It also creates an image which suggests that cycling is more dangerous than it is and puts people off from doing it/exercise and they get other more dangerous health problems Its a vicious circle
This is the biggest thing for me. As a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver this would be the immediate signal to slow down, go a bit wide and basically be EXPECTING the car to pull out. I ALWAYS assume the pilot, of whatever mode of transport it may be, is a moron and hasn’t seen me, be it on a bike or in the car.
In black and white it’s pretty much the drivers fault however, as a vulnerable road user you should ALWAYS be protecting yourself.
Except that a democracy accepts that certain members need more protection than others. Rights and responsibilities aren’t universal and common law protects the vulnerable.
There are standards in the UK law. How stringent those standards are is another question. Plus a lot of lights are sold that don’t meet the standard, so there may be many people out there breaking the law without even realising it.
I’m sorry what? Driver here. Unless it’s pitch black you can see an unlit bicycle on the road. You just have to actually follow the rules of the road, check your mirror and your blind spot and pay attention. If you cannot see in the dark, don’t drive in the dark.
It’s one thing to encourage cyclists to protect themselves. It’s another thing to engage in this overcompensating kind of victim blaming. The driver is at fault. People make mistakes. Be courteous and do better next time.
Analogies always go wrong because it is not exactly the same and you can always focus on the differences.
My point with Democracy that the argument there reminded me of, is that it is the worst type of government except for all the others. That is, there are many flaws that we can find, however the alternatives are far worse.
I have hit a cyclist with my car. And, I’ve been hit by a car on my bike.
Both times I was in the right under the law. But the real take away is that when I got hit on my bike, my bike was destroyed and while I came away with very minor injuries, another inch or two and I could have been killed. With the car on bike hit, on my side the only physical damage was a minor scratch in my paint. (The cyclist was Ok too thank God).
With my car on bike hit, I was mentally shaken up, both from the incident itself and putting on my cyclist hat, realizing that even if while riding I was crossing paths with a careful driver who really really cared about cyclists’ safety, I could still get hit.
Cyclists have the most to lose here and it doesn’t take crossing paths with someone who is oblivious to safe driving to get hit. So the legalities of whose right and whose wrong are kind of meaningless. Don’t put your body and life in someone else’s hands. Keep that responsibility for yourself.
When I’m out on the bike I assume every car is driven by someone who is texting, while eating french fries and fiddling with the radio. So, it’s on me to do everything I can to make myself impossible to miss. Neon green helmet, shoes and occasionally gloves, florescent gilet or jacket, extremely bright white flasher on the front and Varia with secondary bright red flasher on the rear. If a driver is annoyed by my illumination, then at least they saw me…
On my evening (car) commute home two nights ago I was stopped at a red light. Cyclist on a black bike with no lights wearing dark blue and black clothing flew through the light without slowing to check traffic at a fairly busy intersection. Fortunately, cross-traffic did see him (I assume because the next intersection is very brightly lit, and they saw his silhouette) in time to slow down.
Some cyclists may feel secure in all that garb and fail to switch on too.