This is not to exonerate the driver... However, just because it's night and headlights are on doesn't make a stealth cyclist or pedestrian visible. Just last night, I saw a boy across the intersection chasing a loose ball. He was wearing dark clothes. The only way I could see him was the motion across my field of vision. If the cyclist were in the same lane, the relative motion would have been less noticible. Motion and brightness are instinctive attention grabbers. If something isn't moving or bright it's going to get lost in the background. Glare will obstruct vision. If there are lights in the direct field of view, especially headlights, store front lights, street lights and any or all reflecting in ice or a wet surface will obscure darker objects by causing the pupils to conscrit and reduce night vision. It's like an automatic camera changing exposures for light value. Dirty, fogged or frosted windows will obsure objects The door pillar on the auto will obscure an area of vision.
I agree, that the diabetic spin is questionable. The driver was probably distracted with something or didn't handle a turn or lane change. Or the driver was scared to death. But I also believe that cyclists can be invisible to most drivers under some circumstances. Last fall, I was biking after dark along the bike path behind Olbrecht Park and a cyclist with no lights, dark bike, and dark clothes appeared out of the dark area between the street lights. Kind of spooky to see this stealth cyclist approach. My opinion is that some (but not all) of these cyclists are not out for recreation or out for the communal good but are using old and cheap bikes to save money or because they can't drive. Like pedestrians who wear dark clothing, they can see the road ahead but doen't perceive themselves as being invisible to others. Just my two two cents to play a devil's advocate. Regards, DJ --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > ... the cyclist who was killed recently on Femrite > Rd. > > It was pitch dark out, he didn't have any lights or > even a reflector. > They think the driver may have had a diabetic > reaction tho alcohol is a > possibility. They are awaiting lab reports before > deciding what to do > next. > > > > The "diabetic reaction" sounds like a made up excuse > to me. This > bicyclist was hit from behind, remember? It is not > pitch dark if the car > had its headlights on! Granted, the bicyclist > should have had lights and > a reflector. But that still doesn't take away from > the fact that the > driver of the motor vehicle was at fault for hitting > him. > > The DOT Motorist Handbook says your headlights will > let you see about 400 > feet ahead and that you should drive at a speed that > allows you to stop > within 400 feet (Page 41 of: > http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/docs/e-handbook.pdf > ). Therefore, > there is no excuse for hitting a bicyclist from > behind, even if the > bicyclist doesn't have any lights or even a > reflector on the bicycle. > The driver of the motor vehicle in the case should > have been issued a > citation regardless of whether the bicyclist had > lights and reflectors or > not. > > Mike Neuman > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
