Things cyclists should know … POV driver who's incapable of cycling

No it doesn't, black goes with everything.

I'm seriously considering buying myself some high viz. I've nearly not seen a lot of poorly lit/darkly dressed cyclists recently.

Chartreuse, not hiviz

If you are in their line of sight you should be visible. Hi Viz actually helps you be seen at long distance, but at close range its benefits are negligble. But if people then drive closer to you having seen you are in hi viz it creates an added different risk.

This is not a clear cut issue.

Stolen from Wikipedia

"
Cyclists

Traffic risks to the cyclist are similar to those faced by motorcyclists (see SMIDSY), with the main differences being that bicycling speeds are typically lower, and the bicyclist wears less protective gear. Nonetheless, there seems to be even less research on the effectiveness of high-visibility clothing for the bicyclist than for the motorcyclist. However, a number of vendors market high-visibility clothing for cyclists. From a good vantage point along a road or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycleway[/I]]. Research is needed to quantify the extent to which this plainly evident conspicuity advantage might translate into fewer bike/car collisions. Recent studies have shown that the most critical distance the driver actually needs to see those wearing the gear, is at the distance of 50 meters. From 1 km away, a cyclist would be barely visible regardless of the visibility of his gear. The critical detection distance is the crucial point where a cyclist must be detected, because that is the point where most drivers will focus their attention.
A 2009 Australian study found that fluorescent vests were not a significant improvement on black clothing at night, and that retro-reflective strips were more effective when attached to knees and ankles than on a more or less static jacket.[4] Reference: Wood, J.M. et al. 2009. Drivers' and cyclists' experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41: 772-776. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier:[10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2009.03.014)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing

Insulting someone from a position of ignorance is possibly the action of a plonker.

It is called due care and attention. Sadly the norm is well below this, and leads to the "sorry mate I just wasn't looking where I was going as I had better things to do didn't see you" excuse.

fixt

I agree with James.

The tinted windows are fundamentally a red herring, the point remains there are lots of vehicles (vans, lorries, Creme Egg cars) where you can't see out the back at all, so you have to rely on the side mirrors. It is good to be aware of that.

Get those windows sorted

Window, singular. It's just the rear window of the load bin canopy.

get it sorted then

And how do you propose the Creme Egg driver does that?

Or perhaps, more relevantly, me when I hire a street van?

if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you.....etc.

And how do you propose the Creme Egg driver does that?
its made of chocolate and tin foil, unwrap a bit at the back and get munching.

If you are in their line of sight you should be visible.

Should be visible? What if you're not? What if the driver is looking at a girls arse on the other side of the road and only covering the road with his peripheral vision?

Given that we will never have 100% good drivers on the road why consider controlling the variables that we can influence?

And how do you propose the Creme Egg driver does that?

Or perhaps, more relevantly, me when I hire a street van?

tin opener wil solve that one

We will (it is road worthy as is though, it has passed an MOT since we've had it, and it's no worse than a van with no rear window ffs) but this isn't really the point. Ours is not the only one on the road. A thing with a tinted rear window is something that's quite easy to recognise from the rear, so as a cyclist I find it useful to be aware that the driver of such a thing may not have seen me if I'm behind it.

I, personally, am glad to have been informed. But maybe I'm biased in favour of my wife because she's just brought beer home from the supermarket.

Checks of tinted glass are not part of the MoT test. You might want to check your vehicle's road legal.

or rearview glasses.

arg

stolen text.

For a legal window tint in the UK the specifications are:
a) Motor Vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1985
b) The light transmitted through the windscreen must be at least 75%.
c) The front side windows (to either side of the drivers’ head) must allow at least 70% of light to be transmitted through them.

If the glass is tinted to a point whereby it lets through less light, the vehicle is breaking UK Window tinting law.

The consequences of illegally tinted windows!

If you are driving with less than legally required light transmitting through the windscreen and front side windows, the following could happen ;

a) You could be stopped and fined - you are effectively handing the police a 'reason' to stop your vehicle - the car could be impounded if it is considered dangerous to drive and/or could be given a prohobition order until removed!

b) You will be required to remove the film (which will cost) and present your car to the Police confirming it has been returned to a legal status.

c) If you have an accident and it can be proven that the reduced vision caused by the illegal film was a contributing factor, you are likely to get part or full blame - even if it was not under normal circumstances your fault!

d) Even worse - your insurer - if they stand to be in a position where they are looking at full acceptance of liability (as you were at fault) - may determine that your insurance is invalidated! and you will be looking at footing the costs on your own for your own vehicle and any other damage to third party vehicles or property.

In summary, it might look great - and you may get away with it - in the same way that there are plenty of motorists with illegal exhausts or number plates - but is it worth the risk? It would be difficult for an insurer to maintain that a 'dodgy' number plate contributed to an accident - but how easy would it be to claim that the reason you did not see the motorbike is because you had illegally tinted the window ?

http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/law-window-tinting-2

Should be visible? What if you're not? What if the driver is looking at a girls arse on the other side of the road and only covering the road with his peripheral vision?

Given that we will never have 100% good drivers on the road why consider controlling the variables that we can influence?

visibility is about being in someone's line of sight. if he is looking at a girls arse then hi viz will make no difference to getting him to look at you.

High viz, (much like helmets) is a red herring when it comes to safety and just another stick to beat cyclists with.

If you want to wear either then that's fine but it shouldn't be necessary to of drivers are following the highway code. This is covered in rule 126:

126: Stopping Distances: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear

At night, your stopping distance is thus defined by the range of your headlights. i.e if your headlight beam is 50 metres, you shouldn't be travelling over approximately 48mph.

I agree that it is possible that drivers will treat you differently and that you shouldn't have to wear high viz to be safe (and it is only a negligible contribution to safety anyway) but I believe that if you genuinely want to be as safe as possible it is something that you should consider.

Is it ?

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

High contrast clothing is the first action point for cyclists.

What I like about this thread is that it's just like the vespaboy thread but with 80% less swearing.

visibility is about being in someone's line of sight. if he is looking at a girls arse then hi viz will make no difference to getting him to look at you.

Hiviz cycle jackets with porn on, it's the way forward.

I think the Creme Egg car is a red herring; yes they're a menace, but there are hardly any of them still in active service.

in terms of risk management protocols PPE is always the last and weakest resort

http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/advice/minimising-workplace-risks/ppe.aspx
When to use PPE

PPE must always be regarded as a ‘last resort’ to protect against risks to safety and health. Engineering controls and safe systems of work must always be considered first.
For example, it may be possible to do the job using methods that will not require the use of PPE.
If this is not possible, more effective safeguards should be put in place. For example, fixed screens could be provided rather than individual eye protection.
There are a number of reasons why PPE must be considered as a ‘last resort’:

• PPE only protects the person wearing it, whereas measures controlling the risk at source protect everyone in the workplace
  
• theoretical maximum levels of protection are difficult to achieve and the actual level of protection is difficult to assess. Effective protection is only achieved by selecting suitable PPE and if it is correctly fitted, maintained and used
  
• PPE may restrict the wearer to some extent by limiting mobility or visibility, or by requiring additional weight to be carried. Thus creating additional hazards.
  

Is it ?

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

High contrast clothing is the first action point for cyclists.

That's not what it says. It says:

Two important takeaways for cyclists: Increasing your contrast helps you be seen. Think flashing bike lights. Also, remember the importance of good road positioning.