Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.

Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.

"Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).

"I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."

The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".

Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.

In a tragic timeline of events, 42-year-old John Stanley Lewis was killed when hit by a driver on the A9 in Perth on 25 January, the first of a series of six pedestrian fatalities between then and February 6.

An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a cyclist in Linlithgow on 29 January, while a 75-year-old man was killed after being hit by a driver in Hamilton on February 1.

The next day, student Chinenye Vera Okonkwo, 33, died after a two-car crash in Glasgow city centre, with a 79-year-old man and a 64-year-old man killed in Edinburgh on February 4 and Glasgow on February 6 after being hit by the driver of a bus and a car driver respectively.

Ch Insp Napier, who is also a commander of road policing, confirmed that specialist officers were investigating each of the six incidents to fully establish the circumstances.

On average, 37 pedestrians died annually on Scotland's roads between 2017 and 2021, according to Transport Scotland statistics, meaning 16 per cent of the yearly average was suffered in just under two weeks.

Concerns about the police asking pedestrians to protect themselves with hi-vis clothing mirrors the treatment cyclists often receive — with requests for riders to make sure they have lights, bright clothing and helmets a regular feature of roads policing, especially on social media.

In 2020, the Metropolitan Police denied that an operation handing out hi-vis vests to bicycle riders in the English capital constituted victim-blaming.. Meanwhile in November 2021 Northern Ireland's road policing unit said that "nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" and recommended hi-vis clothing, prompting the following reply including one of their Surrey counterparts' tweets.

In May of last year, broadcaster and pedalling presenter Jeremy Vine shared a video of a police officer riding alongside him in full hi-vis being close passed by a lorry driver.

The clip prompted Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigations, to remind motorists that they have "a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users".

And wearing hi-vis did little to protect the road.cc reader who submitted yesterday's Near Miss of the Day video, in which an oncoming driver veered across the centre of the road, only pulling away from the rider at the last second — despite the cyclist having lights, reflectors and fluorescent clothing.

"Lights, reflectors and hi-vis — if they ain't looking they won't see you," our reader concluded.

It is not the first time Police Scotland's communication to vulnerable road users has been questioned either. Just a few months ago the force was accused of victim-blaming after advising cyclists – but not drivers – to "pay attention to road signs, markings and particularly red lights".

https://road.cc/content/news/now-police-ask-pedestrians-wear-hi-vis-299283

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief
> inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing
> after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
>
> Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers
> should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.
>
> "Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter,
> particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or
> fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).
>
> "I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to
> ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
>
> The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas
> where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct
> vehicle lights are in operation".
>
> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the
> safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across
> the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion
> that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.
>
> In a tragic timeline of events, 42-year-old John Stanley Lewis was
> killed when hit by a driver on the A9 in Perth on 25 January, the first
> of a series of six pedestrian fatalities between then and February 6.
>
> An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a
> cyclist in Linlithgow on 29 January, while a 75-year-old man was killed
> after being hit by a driver in Hamilton on February 1.
>
> The next day, student Chinenye Vera Okonkwo, 33, died after a two-car
> crash in Glasgow city centre, with a 79-year-old man and a 64-year-old
> man killed in Edinburgh on February 4 and Glasgow on February 6 after
> being hit by the driver of a bus and a car driver respectively.
>
> Ch Insp Napier, who is also a commander of road policing, confirmed that
> specialist officers were investigating each of the six incidents to fully
> establish the circumstances.
>
> On average, 37 pedestrians died annually on Scotland's roads between 2017
> and 2021, according to Transport Scotland statistics, meaning 16 per cent
> of the yearly average was suffered in just under two weeks.
>
> Concerns about the police asking pedestrians to protect themselves with
> hi-vis clothing mirrors the treatment cyclists often receive — with
> requests for riders to make sure they have lights, bright clothing and
> helmets a regular feature of roads policing, especially on social media.
>
> In 2020, the Metropolitan Police denied that an operation handing out
> hi-vis vests to bicycle riders in the English capital constituted
> victim-blaming. Meanwhile in November 2021 Northern Ireland's road
> policing unit said that "nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" and
> recommended hi-vis clothing, prompting the following reply including one
> of their Surrey counterparts' tweets.
>
> In May of last year, broadcaster and pedalling presenter Jeremy Vine
> shared a video of a police officer riding alongside him in full hi-vis
> being close passed by a lorry driver.
>
> The clip prompted Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime
> at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision
> investigations, to remind motorists that they have "a responsibility to
> protect vulnerable road users".
>
> And wearing hi-vis did little to protect the road.cc reader who submitted
> yesterday's Near Miss of the Day video, in which an oncoming driver
> veered across the centre of the road, only pulling away from the rider at
> the last second — despite the cyclist having lights, reflectors and fluorescent clothing.
>
> "Lights, reflectors and hi-vis — if they ain't looking they won't see
> you," our reader concluded.
>
> It is not the first time Police Scotland's communication to vulnerable
> road users has been questioned either. Just a few months ago the force
> was accused of victim-blaming after advising cyclists – but not drivers –
> to "pay attention to road signs, markings and particularly red lights".
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/now-police-ask-pedestrians-wear-hi-vis-299283
>

I’ve no time for ‘victim blaming’ but there is an element of common sense
in, for example, wearing something light, carrying a torch, when walking on
a dark, unlit road without a pavement at night. I sometimes go for a late
night walk. Our road is narrow, has poor lighting, no pavement etc. Even
though it is a private road and is little used, I make a point of wearing
something light and having a torch.

As for cyclists, seeing one with lights at night is a rarity. Ditto light,
let alone high vis, clothing.

Translation: We don’t know what caused these accidents, but wearing hi-viz
is a good idea.

IOW, perhaps, I’m Commander of Road Policing in Scotland, and this looks
bad for my bump up to Super, so I have to be seen to be doing something?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief
> inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing
> after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
>
> Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers
> should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.
>
> "Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter,
> particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or
> fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).
>
> "I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to
> ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
>
> The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas
> where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct
> vehicle lights are in operation".
>
> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the
> safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across
> the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion
> that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.
>
> In a tragic timeline of events, 42-year-old John Stanley Lewis was
> killed when hit by a driver on the A9 in Perth on 25 January, the first
> of a series of six pedestrian fatalities between then and February 6.
>
> An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a
> cyclist in Linlithgow on 29 January, while a 75-year-old man was killed
> after being hit by a driver in Hamilton on February 1.
>
> The next day, student Chinenye Vera Okonkwo, 33, died after a two-car
> crash in Glasgow city centre, with a 79-year-old man and a 64-year-old
> man killed in Edinburgh on February 4 and Glasgow on February 6 after
> being hit by the driver of a bus and a car driver respectively.
>
> Ch Insp Napier, who is also a commander of road policing, confirmed that
> specialist officers were investigating each of the six incidents to fully
> establish the circumstances.
>
> On average, 37 pedestrians died annually on Scotland's roads between 2017
> and 2021, according to Transport Scotland statistics, meaning 16 per cent
> of the yearly average was suffered in just under two weeks.
>
> Concerns about the police asking pedestrians to protect themselves with
> hi-vis clothing mirrors the treatment cyclists often receive — with
> requests for riders to make sure they have lights, bright clothing and
> helmets a regular feature of roads policing, especially on social media.
>
> In 2020, the Metropolitan Police denied that an operation handing out
> hi-vis vests to bicycle riders in the English capital constituted
> victim-blaming. Meanwhile in November 2021 Northern Ireland's road
> policing unit said that "nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" and
> recommended hi-vis clothing, prompting the following reply including one
> of their Surrey counterparts' tweets.
>
> In May of last year, broadcaster and pedalling presenter Jeremy Vine
> shared a video of a police officer riding alongside him in full hi-vis
> being close passed by a lorry driver.
>
> The clip prompted Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime
> at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision
> investigations, to remind motorists that they have "a responsibility to
> protect vulnerable road users".
>
> And wearing hi-vis did little to protect the road.cc reader who submitted
> yesterday's Near Miss of the Day video, in which an oncoming driver
> veered across the centre of the road, only pulling away from the rider at
> the last second — despite the cyclist having lights, reflectors and fluorescent clothing.
>
> "Lights, reflectors and hi-vis — if they ain't looking they won't see
> you," our reader concluded.
>
> It is not the first time Police Scotland's communication to vulnerable
> road users has been questioned either. Just a few months ago the force
> was accused of victim-blaming after advising cyclists – but not drivers –
> to "pay attention to road signs, markings and particularly red lights".
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/now-police-ask-pedestrians-wear-hi-vis-299283
>

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> Translation: We don’t know what caused these accidents, but wearing hi-viz
> is a good idea.
>
> IOW, perhaps, I’m Commander of Road Policing in Scotland, and this looks
> bad for my bump up to Super, so I have to be seen to be doing something?
>

I’m sure there is some truth in that but, as per my other post, wearing
light clothing etc while walking on narrow, unlit roads etc is good advice.

I’m sure you lock your doors and windows when you go out. You shouldn’t
need to. Others should respect your property and I’m not suggesting if you
forget etc it shifts any blame onto you. However, it could save you the
hassle of a someone helping themselves to your possessions. Trust me, there
is enough hassle when you did lock up. Even when the insurance company
coughs up, somethings are irreplaceable.

On 13/02/2023 01:36 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
> Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.
> "Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).
> "I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
> The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".
> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.

Does no-one remember the PIF film of some decades ago: "Wear something
light at night"?

Even if one does not want to obey such commonsense strictures (whether
because a light coloured coat is unkewl or not), it's still good advice.

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Translation: We don’t know what caused these accidents, but wearing hi-viz
>> is a good idea.
>>
>> IOW, perhaps, I’m Commander of Road Policing in Scotland, and this looks
>> bad for my bump up to Super, so I have to be seen to be doing something?
>
> I’m sure there is some truth in that but, as per my other post, wearing
> light clothing etc while walking on narrow, unlit roads etc is good advice.

Absolutely.

> I’m sure you lock your doors and windows when you go out. You shouldn’t
> need to. Others should respect your property and I’m not suggesting if you
> forget etc it shifts any blame onto you. However, it could save you the
> hassle of a someone helping themselves to your possessions. Trust me, there
> is enough hassle when you did lock up. Even when the insurance company
> coughs up, somethings are irreplaceable.

Fortunately never been in that situation, but I can se your point.

Some of the good things about living in this street is the number of police
officers who also live in it. One has a Very Big Police Dog at home.

--
Spike

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 01:36 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the
>> safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across
>> the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her
>> assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.

I hate to point this out, but avoiding being a victim is the whole point of
the exercise. You can’t be a victim of anything, for merely wearing hi-viz.

> Does no-one remember the PIF film of some decades ago: "Wear something
> light at night"?

> Even if one does not want to obey such commonsense strictures (whether
> because a light coloured coat is unkewl or not), it's still good advice.

I remember one night in darkest Lancashire, circa 1958, my mum, dad, and
me, all in our car, were following my brother, who was leading the way on
his motorcycle. He was wearing a motorcycle coat, the belt of which had a
6”x2.5” patch of reflective material at the back, it might have been called
Scotchlite. In the car’s headlights you could see this tape for what seemed
to be miles. Very impressive.

One wonders why cyclists have such a death wish, when it comes to safety
matters.

--
Spike

eburtthebike | 4058 posts | 12 min ago
2 likes

"I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."

Pedestrians almost never put themselves at risk, as the risk comes almost entirely from drivers going too fast for the conditions. If you hit a pedestrian on a dark road, then it's your fault for going too fast to see them before you had time to stop; it is not the pedestrian's fault that you were driving too fast.

This is just the latest iteration of the "everything must be done for drivers" mantra so common today. Never mind the war on motorists, they won't be killed by pedestrians or cyclists, so this is just victim blaming, and Ch Insp Napier should have been emphasising most strongly the responsibility of the driver not to kill vulnerable road users

vthejk | 260 posts | 28 min ago
3 likes

Two cents.

It isn't objectively wrong to expect pedestrians to be dressed visibly on the road.

Oh but ​Yes it is because hi-vis clothing, signals and crossings needn't exist if not for motor vehicles, their ridiculously high mass and the vast speed differential between them and other road users.

I was about to argue that the police were partially right, before I realised that no they're really not.

IanMK | 795 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

"committed to improving the safety of all road users"

If that was true wouldn't you be telling us what you are doing to protect vulnerable road users. Even someone with the most basic understanding of risk assesment knows that PPE is the last and least effective measure. They're effectively saying "it's the wild west out there make sure you do everything to look after yourselves".

IanMSpencer replied to Martin73 | 1685 posts | 11 min ago
1 like

What is fascinating about that bit of Highway Code is that the expectation about drivers being competent is so low they are promoting the need to wear Hi-Viz when walking on a pavement where no vehicle is legally allowed to drive. It's not like rule 3 is an extension of the country roads thing, and it is clearly specifically illustrated with pavement walking.

It also expects you to dress according to the weather, so if it gets unexpectedly gloomy when you are about to leave the office for the day, you will be glad you brought your sleeping bag instead of risking that dangerous walk along the pavement.

I've raised this before, nipping from your hotel to the curry house at the end of the working day via pavements and pelican crossings still gets you a driver claiming its your fault for not having a "Beware of the Magmaloo" outfit.

You would have thought a wiser safety message would be "Don't drink and walk".

On 13/02/2023 04:39 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> IanMSpencer replied to Martin73 | 1685 posts | 11 min ago
>
> What is fascinating about that bit of Highway Code is that the expectation about drivers being competent is so low they are promoting the need to wear Hi-Viz when walking on a pavement where no vehicle is legally allowed to drive.

That's only in case a fairy-cyclist comes up behind the pedestrian.

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:49:09 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 01:36 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
> > Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.
> > "Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).
> > "I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
> > The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".
> > Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.
> Does no-one remember the PIF film of some decades ago: "Wear something
> light at night"?
>
Does anyone remember Augustus Windsock. He survived in a tweed suit and cap..

On 13/02/2023 05:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:49:09 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 13/02/2023 01:36 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim-blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
>>> Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible.
>>> "Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said (link is external).
>>> "I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
>>> The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".
>>> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim-blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.

>> Does no-one remember the PIF film of some decades ago: "Wear something
>> light at night"?

Sorry. "PIF film" is a tautology" (like "PIN number").

So just PIF.
>
> Does anyone remember Augustus Windsock. He survived in a tweed suit and cap.

Oh yes.

He changed his name to Mike Collins.

Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" This statement is completely at odds with their strenuous (and so far successful) efforts to avoid providing an online portal for reporting bad road behaviour. Despite other large organisations using near miss data to improve H&S performance this is lost on them.

People are offering to do part of their job for them for no money and provide what is possibly the best evidence of traffic offences - video evidence. It's about time that rotten police forces are sacked if they're not prepared to deal with road crime in a sensible fashion. People are dying and then this idiot bangs on about hi-viz - that's insulting to the victims and their families.

On 13/02/2023 06:00 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" This statement is completely at odds with their strenuous (and so far successful) efforts to avoid providing an online portal for reporting bad road behaviour. Despite other large organisations using near miss data to improve H&S performance this is lost on them.
>
> People are offering to do part of their job for them for no money and provide what is possibly the best evidence of traffic offences - video evidence. It's about time that rotten police forces are sacked if they're not prepared to deal with road crime in a sensible fashion. People are dying and then this idiot bangs on about hi-viz - that's insulting to the victims and their families.

Why don't you fairy-cycle up to Scotland and tell Chief Inspector Napier
that his is a rotten police force?

Don't go in the car with the non-functioning windscreen wipers, though.

So, if you're driving at night during a storm, and you hit a fallen tree, who's fault is it? You (the driver) for not driving within the limits of the conditions, or the tree for not being painted in hi-viz and having lights on it?

APPLAUSE.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, if you're driving at night during a storm, and you hit a fallen tree,
> who's fault is it? You (the driver) for not driving within the limits of
> the conditions, or the tree for not being painted in hi-viz and having lights on it?
>
> APPLAUSE.

That’s a more stupid argument than most, and that’s saying something.

Cyclists, eh?

--
Spike

VIPcyclist | 95 posts | 27 min ago
1 like

During the daytime all road users should be able to see one another without dressing up in special clothing. Note that I say should. Sadly it is not always, for a host of reasons, the case. At night though it's a different story. If I cross the road at night, typically wearing : black jeans, black coat, black hat, then I take extra care because I know that the otherwise law abiding motorist is not, yes not, going to see me until, either, they have to slam on or run me over. Of course if I'm walking on the path I expect that no motor vehicle will bother me ; sadly my expectations are not always met.

On 13/02/2023 07:06 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, if you're driving at night during a storm, and you hit a fallen tree, who's fault is it? You (the driver) for not driving within the limits of the conditions, or the tree for not being painted in hi-viz and having lights on it?
>
> APPLAUSE.

The person or person who planted the tree in the middle of the
carriageway lane would have to bear some of the blame, surely?

On 13/02/2023 08:31 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> VIPcyclist | 95 posts | 27 min ago
> 1 like
>
> During the daytime all road users should be able to see one another without dressing up in special clothing.

There are plenty of daytime weather and light conditions where lights
are essential.

Heavy rain and fog would be two obvious ones.

It is hard to see how anyone - even someone as stupid and self-centred
as the average UK fairy-cyclist - could object in principle or in
practice to making themselves as visible as possible, whether during
daylight or otherwise.

Most cars sold in the UK nowadays have settings which enable automated
daytime use of headlights and rear lights.

Why is that? It never used to be the case and the law does not require
headlights during daylight hours. It is for the benefit of other
road-users, including pedestrians.

> Note that I say should. Sadly it is not always, for a host of reasons, the case. At night though it's a different story. If I cross the road at night, typically wearing : black jeans, black coat, black hat, then I take extra care because I know that the otherwise law abiding motorist is not, yes not, going to see me until, either, they have to slam on or run me over. Of course if I'm walking on the path I expect that no motor vehicle will bother me ; sadly my expectations are not always met.

Correct. Those loony fairy-cyclists will mow you down on the footway in
a heartbeat.

Then they'll whinge that you have ruined their life.

What is fascinating about that bit of Highway Code is that the expectation about drivers being competent is so low they are promoting the need to wear Hi-Viz when walking on a pavement where no vehicle is legally allowed to drive. It's not like rule 3 is an extension of the country roads thing, and it is clearly specifically illustrated with pavement walking.

It also expects you to dress according to the weather, so if it gets unexpectedly gloomy when you are about to leave the office for the day, you will be glad you brought your sleeping bag instead of risking that dangerous walk along the pavement.

I've raised this before, nipping from your hotel to the curry house at the end of the working day via pavements and pelican crossings still gets you a driver claiming its your fault for not having a "Beware of the Magmaloo" outfit.

You would have thought a wiser safety message would be "Don't drink and walk".

I got shouted at on Friday night by some bloke walking toward me on a shared-use path who said my bike's headlight was too bright (Cateye AMPP800, the setting that's a mid brightness but pulses a bit brighter every couple of seconds).

I'd seen him ahead of me - fifteen metres, maybe more - and had slowed right down. Then had to stop because a bike was coming up behind him so I waited until they went past before moving around Mr Grumpy.

He said my light was too bright, what did I think I was doing, etc etc.

Thing is, if I had used a dimmer headlight then I certainly wouldn't have seen him until I was right on top of him due to the headlights on all the oncoming cars, and to be frank I wouldn't have been able to safely see where I was going (again, due to the headlights on all the oncoming cars).

(I did try using the brighter steady setting once, but then had cars flashing their headlights at me...).

NotNigel replied to ooblyboo | 64 posts | 7 hours ago
4 likes

Always makes me laugh how drivers put up with all the stupidly bright, high up led lights that all the usual SUV's have blinding them but get really pissed off with cyclists. I've had some one slow down, hanging out the driver's side window shouting abuse about how distracting my light was...because not paying attention to what's in front of you whilst shouting at me is not your main distraction...

On 13/02/2023 09:49 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Always makes me laugh how drivers put up with all the stupidly bright, high up led lights that all the usual SUV's have blinding them but get really pissed off with cyclists...

....for not displaying any lights at all during the hours of darkness.