Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture" campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong, because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise it seems that the author is serious.

And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- even though I had been looking directly at him prior to passing.

How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?

Far from being a parody, it seems to employ the same arguments as the worst of those campaigns, namely, that any advocacy of prudent behavior is tantamount to blaming the victim or removing blame from the antagonist. Of course, in reality, you can have both without any contradictions. It is possible and reasonable to recommend that people avoid scenarios where there is a high risk of being victimized, while at the same time placing full legal (I'll leave moral up to other people) responsibility on the antagonist.

As both a cyclist and a driver, I agree with you to a point. However, the wife of an ex-colleague of mine cycles to work every day. She was knocked off her bike by a car one dark morning (luckily not hurt, just a bit shaken up). She had lights front and back on the bike, was wearing a high visibility jacket, had a head mounted light, and little lights on her body. Basically, she was lit up like a Christmas tree. The drivers response after hitting her - "sorry, I didn't see you".

Sure, and there's a point where "I didn't see you" means "I was negligent and not paying attention" rather than "You weren't visible". I'm not saying that motorists have no responsibility to look for bicycles; rather, that there is a shared responsibility: Motorists should look for bicycles, and cyclists should ensure that, if looked for, they will be seen.

Quite right. There are some cases where the cyclist is actually not visible enough (no lights, no reflectors). But more common is 1) the driver didn't look, 2) the driver didn't look carefully enough, 3) the driver couldn't see even if he/she was careful.

For case 3) and HGV, a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

I love it when people wear lights on themselves at night (pedestrians too!) It makes my job much easier whenever I am operating a car or a bicycle. However, if I realize that I have not noticed someone in the street until I am passing them that is an indicator that my speed is unreasonable for the conditions and I would immediately slow down.

How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?

You're not. In your example with the cyclist with a burnt-out light, dark clothing, and dark night, if you had hit him, I would very clearly assert that the cyclist was at fault.

I'm fine with requiring cyclists to have front and rear lights in the dark and/or rain (hell, this is already required of cars), but requiring clothing with reflective paint on top of that? It's a bit ridiculous, IMO. Lights are more than sufficient to make a cyclist visible, the rest of the burden should be on drivers to actually pay attention to what they're doing

The current safety technologies like lights and brakes are absolutely necessary but they only work up to a certain point. The rest are human factor. But to say that cyclist should stay safe by spraying paint on their body is getting a bit too far.

By driving more slowly, under street lights, in a separate lane.

You're right. Just saying "drivers should be more careful!" isn't going to have any effect. We need to change transportation infrastructure to be safer for non-automobile traffic.

If I drive on a road, and it does not have street lights, how do I start driving on it under street lights? It does not have them.

Face the reality. Where there is enough traffic to warrant it and the community can afford it, there are street lights and separate bike paths. But in many places, we don't have them. It is reasonable to require bikes to have lights in the dark, so that others can see them.

I ride bike to work, >10km one way, and 98 % of the route has bike or bike/pedestrian paths. But I still have a) lights in my bike, b) reflective jacket, c) helmet. In the winter, I occasionally have trouble with pedestrians just because I don't see them (even with the good lights I have in my bike).

Two thirds of bike fatalities here happen without a collision with a motor vehicle (i.e. bike hits another bike, a pedestrian, a stationary object, or just otherwise dies while riding). Of collisions with motor vehicles, the fault is usually with the driver, but not exclusively. Intersection + truck/bus is the dangerous combination.

There is a 100$-200$ fine where I live if you drive around a car without working lights. The same law is used if the rear light of a bicycle is not working.

So, to answer your question, people in traffic should follow traffic laws.

I agree. But lights burning out happens, and it's far more dangerous on a bike than on a car -- because a car is likely to have other lights and otherwise be large enough to be easily visible anyway.

Driving on the motorway without functional lights is extremely dangerous. Bikes can use the side-walk or stop when meeting traffic, but cars do not really have that option when dealing with broken down equipment.

That said, the law is the law. You have to be visible in traffic. If the light burns out, then maybe its a bad idea to be out in traffic at night.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com