CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
You'd think a ruddy great big horse would be pretty obvious on the road, but...
50
Other clothing. You should wear
boots or shoes with hard soles and heels
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight
reflective clothing if you have to ride at night or in poor visibility
@baldcyclist
I'ts like I wrote the rules, and published the website ;0, rather than simply quote from it.
bollocks. i replied to your expressed opinion, not your 'simple' quote that preceded it.
And actually, having now looked at the HC section on cyclists it actually says, in rule 59, that cyclists should wear:
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing
So not specific 'hi-viz'.
EDIT: D'oh, just realise Smudge has already pointed this out.
@bax maybe fair enough. I was expressing a positive opinion of the rules as are written. \@bax
The bit about motorist perception still stands though, their rules are based on that book, and that book states quite firmly what should be worn by cyclists. Not unreasonable therefor for a motorist to jump on that (as we do on many minor rules that motorists break, and even if they don't follow them themselves).
What is clear though from this debate, is that my pointing out what the rules are (whether speed limit, or helmet, or Red light or other thing that cyclists don't comply with because we know better)... Is that I as an individual have as much chance of getting other cyclists to follow those rules and conform, as cyclists in general have of getting motorists to follow the rules which we think they should follow. No-one wants to be told what they can or can't do!
However, that shouldn't stop me as an individual, or cyclists as a bigger group trying to raise awareness of the rules (both for cyclists and motorists), even if it is falling on deaf ears.....I will get someone to abide by that speed limit on the Bridge though ;)
Mainline trains are pretty big, only go where the tracks go and they're still yellow at both ends incase someone can't see them.
I will get someone to abide by that speed limit on the Bridge though
Well it has worked on me, mostly... I'm not going hell for leather downhill on FRB any more, even when its empty. Although sans cycle computer, who can truly tell where 15mph lies..
The highway code thing still puzzles me though. The page itself is headed as Rules For Cyclists, but shirley its a mixture of rules and recommendations, which is rather unhelpful for everyone.
"The bit about motorist perception still stands though, their rules are based on that book, and that book states quite firmly what should be worn by cyclists. Not unreasonable therefor for a motorist to jump on that (as we do on many minor rules that motorists break, and even if they don't follow them themselves)."
This is, of course, true. Both sides will always argue they are right for whatever reason ("hi-viz makes me look silly and has never been demonstrated to reduce fatalities" VS "everybody speeds around here") and I submit it's only subjective judgement that really counts here.
However, knowing something is hypocritical is no real help. Suppose a future version of the Highway Code recommends always cycling on the pavement (obviously accompanied by legislation that makes every pavement in the UK 'shared use'). What if a future version of the Highway Code recommends flat bars only, or only tyres of a certain width?
I'm fishing here of course, to find the point at which you'd say "okay, even though this is in the Highway Code, I'm going to call it the BS it is". There must be something?
What if the cycle speed limit on the Forth Bridge was lowered to 5mph (or even to walking speed)? That's going to be a long crossing!
Motorist perceptions of what cyclists should do:
Wear Hi-Viz
Wear Helmets
Occupy the left hand cycle lane at all times, even when turning right.
Use segregated cycle paths at all times - that what they were built for to keep cyclists away from motorised traffic.
Should indicate every move even coming downhill and having to brake and by indicating you need to take your hand off the bars, as well as avoid the potholes, and turn too, quite a trick to do all of that.
Where these notions or beliefs as listed above come from is beyond me, but this is what they actually believe.
Things cyclists do:
All jump red lights
Cycle on pavements
Speed
Never indicate
Cannot be seen because they wear dark clothes
Because of course, drivers never do any of the above, ever. Other than the clothing bit that is.
I have never observed three cars going through a red light one after the other, being driven and parked on pavements, and so far onto the pavement as to obstruct it completely. Never ever have I had cars overtake me on the road into the NRIE site where it quite clearly says this is a 10mph zone, as well as all supermarket carparks, they indicate always. Do they hell. But then I don't pay road tax which gives them the right to do all of the above.
Ironically in the many cases of SMIDSY's the cyclists have been wearing Hi-Viz and all of the rest, but the motorist still did not see them, so...what does that say for them? I agree... borrow a police gilet, as a friend did which he rode coming into work, it worked wonders, alternatively get lots of checkered scotch tape or hi-viz strips and stick them all over the place, and watch how motorists behaviours change.
Scuse me what is SMIDGAF? I hate TLA's, FLA's or even SLA's. At work we have the CMT which actually stands for three things in hospital speak, decide which one is applicable....paperwork full of acronyms just does me head in.
I believe it means "Give A F___"
I think of the hi viz as helping the drivers who are looking for you. That's maybe why I'm only scrupulous about dressing as a brickie in the early mornings - if any motorist suffers from my morning sluggishness then they need all the retinal slapping they can get. The other reason being I ride in at dawn a lot, when they're at their most effective.
Seems a bit logic faily to make the job of theoretically considerate but sleep deprived drivers harder because a smaller group of people don't do it at all.
Okay, the cyclist 'rules' I don't comply with.
59
I don't wear a helmet (note, the rule does NOT say you have to wear hi-viz, but can be 'light' clothing)
60
No reflectors (though at night my jacket and shoes have reflective bits all over, but supposed to be white to the front, and red to the rear)
66
I don't always keep both hands on the bars or both feet on the pedals (though the latter most of the time)
My Carradice 'affects' my balance on the bike. I ride correcting that, but by the wording of the rule I shouldn't carry it
If one doesn't accept that there are any downsides then there's certainly not much point not wearing them.
Otherwise it comes down to a balance between positive and negative effects, so I suppose you could argue that (I personally) feel that being treated as a hi-viz obstacle rather than an individual person, just for starters, is more of a loss than any gain to the narrow category of people who are trying to see me but can't ;-)
"Trying to see me, but can't" I'd swap for "Trying to see me but won't until a short time later than if I was fugly."
I may be wrong about this, though evidently I doubt it.
@Liz, Combat Med Tech??
@smudge, nope, nothing as exciting as that...far more prosaic. To do with teams, medical, clinical, management, core etc and a combination thereof...yawn, boring and just plain unimaginative!!
My father had a yellow Sierra in the 90s. Claimed it was for visibility (but he bought it 2nd hand so it clearly was just someone ditching an uncool colour).
I carry a high-viz top in the back of the car in case of breakdowns. If I have to do something unpredictable like get out and fix something in the dark, I want to be as visible as possible.
When cycling in the dark, I have lots of reflective stuff on my winter jacket, bag, trousers, shoes etc. as well as (probably too) bright lights. When cycling in daylight, I try to wear bright colours that stand out (red jacket, mainly).
Dressing to contrast with "what's normal" seems important to me (alongside defensive cycling, not being stupid when there are big metal boxes hurtling around that could kill me...).
I don't really care what the Highway Code says I should or shouldn't do; I use my experience of seeing (or not seeing) cyclists as a driver to inform my decision on how to make myself less likely to be a SMIDSY casualty. It will never be perfect.
"I don't really care what the Highway Code says I should or shouldn't do; I use my experience..."
Sadly the exact same argument that many drivers use.
I've only once had a car-bike collision. I was "just cycling along" when a car approaching me did a right turn across my side of the road and I hit it before somersaulting across the bonnet. I was wearing an almost new hi-viz yellow jacket at the time.
Since then, I've come to believe that folk only see you when they look and the colour of clothing you are wearing will make little difference.
Two things spring to mind here, firstly the confusion in the first article between "Hi-Viz" and "reflective", they are NOT the same thing.
The second is the statement made some years ago, from the driver who left hooked my then girlfriend, to the Police, (who were called by a passer-by who was upset at seeing a teenage girl thrown across a car bonnet in broad daylight, though fortunately at low speed):
"I pulled out past the cyclist and then pulled back into the left, I slowed down indicating left and then turned into the side road and it was then that she came out of nowhere and hit the left side of my car"
My (ex)girlfriends version (agreed on by the Policeman) was that he overtook in a hurry to make it before the junction at which he intended turning, immediately forgot about the "obsruction", braked hard and turned left onto the bike.
Silly, pointless, scary and avoidable. But it is not an observation problem (how many of our recumbentisti have been told that they are "invisible"?) but a training problem, and no amount of bright clothing will save us, in the absence of better driver training only rider experience/training will, unfortunately.
Two things spring to mind here, firstly the confusion in the first article between "Hi-Viz" and "reflective", they are NOT the same thing.
I'll repost the recent study in the Antipodes:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38338/1/c38338.pdf
Fluorescent works by day, retro-reflective works by night. "Hi-Viz", EN471 compliant clothing incorporates both.
Of course, when I say "works" that doesn't relate to magic vehicle deflecting properties, or improved driver observation... It can help them spot you, but might only make their excuses less plausible!
Robert
Hi-Viz" and "reflective", they are NOT the same thing.
Aye but quite often hi-viz comes with reflective stripes/shapes/lettering/marking of some variety. You say hi-viz vest to someone and they will probably think of a bright yellow or orange vest WITH silver reflective stripes across it.
"I don't really care what the Highway Code says I should or shouldn't do; I use my experience..."
Sadly the exact same argument that many drivers use.
That was my point above - since cyclists are more likely to hold a driving licence than the average member of the British public, a near total overlap of thinking with "drivers" shouldn't surprise anyone?
It was amusing on PBP to see completely enclosed velomobile riders forced to wear hi-viz tops - they were sweating buckets!
Entertainingly, French legislation means that you need to wear hi-viz at night *outside* built-up areas only, despite being pretty redundant in that situation, and you can still stealth around the inner-city dual carriageways. I also suspect it's extremely poorly enforced/observed.
@anth, sorry - I wasn't exactly meaning that when I wrote it (looking back, it doesn't look good!) - I do what the Highway Code says I *must* do, but if there are "shoulds" or "advice" then I take their advice and guidance but temper it with my experience - meaning that overall I guess I am more conservative with my cycling than if I just followed what they said I ought to do.
It's like remembering that a speed limit is a limit not a target - just because the law says I CAN drive at 60mph along a single track road with passing places, doesn't mean I will!
Ah, gotcha Liz. My brain still hasn't returned to Edinburgh - body but not spirit etc.
At this point it's traditional to point out the HC advice to ride around Sherriffhall or Picardy Place at the very outside of the roundabout... we could put the "following the HC" mantra to the test by inviting people to do this (some form of signed disclaimer should first be provided?).
The HC says "if you choose to ride round the outside" of roundabouts. So not necessarily advice that you should negotiate roundabouts that way, but that if you wish to you can (though quite frankly it's an absurd entry that should be removed).
comment deleted before posting as I had started to froth at the mouth a little...
just a little
no get off me, I don't want to wear that jacket again, don't put me in your van... I DON'T LIKE BOUNCY WALLPAPER!
"though quite frankly it's an absurd entry that should be removed"
Funny, that's what some drivers say about <insert rule here>, or indeed, cyclists say about hi-viz. Haven't we been establishing that everybody must obey all tenets and suggestions of the HC? :P
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts