# Idiots at work



## markharry66 (14 Jan 2014)

I have a couple of people at work who also ride in daily. Like me they ride bso (bike shaped objects) not that there is anything wrong with that. What has shocked me over last few months now evenings and mornings are dark, is lack of self respect or concern for their own safety. On several occasions a few have had no lights.
I dont wear a helmet but do deck my bike out in lights. Yesterday one of them arrived on a heavy weight bso leaving early in morning with no lights. On asking how do you intend to ride the six miles in the dark with no lights her response was "when I left I forgot my lights" not true as it would have been dark when you left, also her plan was to simply ride six miles on the pavement. Idiots like this should be kept of the road.


----------



## Tommy2 (14 Jan 2014)

She wasn't on the road


----------



## steve52 (14 Jan 2014)

motorist just cant win,even if ys wing a cyclist with no lights they still want to claim ! (Chill guys chil this is toung in cheek )


----------



## sidevalve (14 Jan 2014)

Sadly the above answers are true however. The riders concerned are breaking the law in just the same way as a driver with no lights or parking right across a footpath. And we wonder why people hate cyclists.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Jan 2014)

2870676 said:


> Have a look at these. The price of a pint to give a person a set of basic flashers.


Good "strap ons" Adrian!
Seriously, you can't argue with the price.


----------



## Leodis (14 Jan 2014)

I passed 4 one day last week, all without lights. I generally only see a handful of cyclists anyway but it annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## sazzaa (14 Jan 2014)

I paced a guy on his bike most of the way to my work this morning (only about 8k), and couldn't understand why he skipped onto the pavement for some parts of the journey?! I reached my destination same time as he did, yet I used the roads and sat in traffic when I had to. Annoying.


----------



## sazzaa (14 Jan 2014)

2870676 said:


> Have a look at these. The price of a pint to give a person a set of basic flashers.


 
I have those as my backup lights!


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Jan 2014)

2870851 said:


> They are not going to win the lighting arms race but, as be seen lights in an urban environment, they are better than no lights.


Absolutely! I was agreeing with you. At those prices there's no excuse really.


----------



## cd365 (14 Jan 2014)

I drove past a few this morning in the dark, no lights, but they were on the pavement so that is ok!


----------



## Linford (14 Jan 2014)

Roadrider48 said:


> Good "strap ons" Adrian!
> Seriously, you can't argue with the price.



Where is Fnnaar when you need him


----------



## Linford (14 Jan 2014)

Poundland specials...I have the rear one, and it is still going strong after a year and a half
£3 to solve the problem on both ends or the price of a burger...that said, I had a rider come past me at dusk on a £3k Cervelo the other week without lights...it isn't about money, it is about being arrogant and thinking that the laws are in place for other people.


----------



## sheffgirl (16 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> I drove past a few this morning in the dark, no lights, but they were on the pbecause so that is ok!


That is one thing that annoys me. People seem to think it is OK to ride on the pavement or cycle path without lights just because they aren't on the road. Its not like pedestrians and other cyclists need to see something moving at speed is it?


----------



## Linford (16 Jan 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> That is one thing that annoys me. People seem to think it is OK to ride on the pavement or cycle path without lights just because they aren't on the road. Its not like pedestrians and other cyclists need to see something moving at speed is it?



The problem is that they consider themselves to be fast moving pedestrians, not vehicle users. It is an entirely selfish thing to do.....or just perhaps they are unaware ofthe effect they have when banging past people in pedestrian spaces.


----------



## cd365 (16 Jan 2014)

Payment cycing seems to be worse in the winter.


----------



## jarlrmai (16 Jan 2014)

most pavement cyclists round here jump onto the road if they need to to, they just use a bike as a way to increase their walking speed.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Jan 2014)

It is no secret that we all need lights when it is dark. 

It may not break the bank to buy those cheap lights and hand them out but I really cannot see the reason to even scratch my bank account for someone is either too lazy to go and buy a set of lights or just cannot be bothered to light up.

The best wake up call for those people is to be pulled by the police.

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Jan 2014)

Very poor people in very poorly paid jobs who have had their lights stolen. That paints a very good Dickens picture Adrian, but I don't buy it.

You have shown how cheap lights can be and those lights are simple to take off and take into the workhouse.

Steve


----------



## markharry66 (20 Jan 2014)

its up to them to make sure they are safe and also make sure other road, pavement users can see them. If they cant go to pound land and get lights for £3 they should not be riding.


----------



## tadpole (20 Jan 2014)

Ok So it's three quid for the lights, and just how long till the batteries run out? week or two, or if you get them from pound land maybe a few hours. then what? buy some more, but if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries . Some families I know, a £5 is what stands between them giving their kids food for school or not.


----------



## Maylian (20 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> Ok So it's three quid for the lights, and just how long till the batteries run out? week or two, or if you get them from pound land maybe a few hours. then what? buy some more, but if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries . Some families I know, a £5 is what stands between them giving their kids food for school or not.



Not entirely sure on the logic of this? Firstly it is the law to have lights, secondly if they get hit or hit someone whilst riding without lights then they're likely to be out of pocket far more than £5. Occasionally I take it upon myself to ride behind or infront of cyclists with no lights for a while just to help them out.

I personally love bike lights, cheaper than buying a new bike and I think they look good. People that ride without lights and use the pavement in icy conditions because they think it is safer are on a path to nowhere I think. Personally find that roads are the safest place to be if self-illuminated correctly as the cars disperse that ice so much faster at this time of the year.


----------



## sazzaa (20 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> Ok So it's three quid for the lights, and just how long till the batteries run out? week or two, or if you get them from pound land maybe a few hours. then what? buy some more, but if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries . Some families I know, a £5 is what stands between them giving their kids food for school or not.


 
Being poor isn't an excuse to break the law.


----------



## tadpole (20 Jan 2014)

sazzaa said:


> Being poor isn't an excuse to break the law.


 you've never been poor then.


----------



## sazzaa (20 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> you've never been poor then.


 
There have definitely been times in my life when I haven't been able to go on three holidays a year. It was awful.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (20 Jan 2014)

What is it with either red on the front or white on the back?


----------



## potsy (20 Jan 2014)

We had a guy at work who had lights but only turned the front one on if he was approaching a major junction or roundabout, said the batteries lasted longer that way 

Generally the 20 or so regular cyclists here are pretty good, some of them even stop at the occasional red light


----------



## sheffgirl (20 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> Ok So it's three quid for the lights, and just how long till the batteries run out? week or two, or if you get them from pound land maybe a few hours. then what? buy some more, but if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries . Some families I know, a £5 is what stands between them giving their kids food for school or not.



I got some of those lights from Poundland along with some batteries in October. The front light wasn't too clever but the back light is still going strong, and is quite bright. I have it clipped to my backpack as an extra in addition to the ones on my bike (£6 from Argos last year). I put the batteries in my existing lights and the lights are still working, I've been using them for about an hour each workday, and I've even left them on a few times whilst at work.


----------



## CopperBrompton (20 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries


Three quid for lights, £12 for a charger and set of AA Eneloops that will then cost them about a penny per charge. I don't buy that it's about not being able to afford lights.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> Ok So it's three quid for the lights, and just how long till the batteries run out? week or two, or if you get them from pound land maybe a few hours. then what? buy some more, but if you're on a fixed income or poor spending a fiver a week for batteries . Some families I know, a £5 is what stands between them giving their kids food for school or not.


Set of lights from Poundland would cost £2, with another £1 for a 12 pack of Kodak batteries. From the same place.
So price can be ruled out.
Who'd be at fault if they were hit?


----------



## asterix (21 Jan 2014)

sazzaa said:


> Being poor isn't an excuse to break the law.



No, you need to be rich to do that successfully.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (21 Jan 2014)

I've seen a lot of cyclists recently on non-BSOs (i.e. bikes with more advanced specs), who have the same problem: no lights, even when it's completely dark. I hope they don't have kids.


----------



## tadpole (21 Jan 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Three quid for lights, £12 for a charger and set of AA Eneloops that will then cost them about a penny per charge. I don't buy that it's about not being able to afford lights.


I know a few people who cannot find £10 for heating their homes for a week let alone £15, for something they can get away not having, hell I know people who have to get food from the food bank and often have to rely on the 'soup runs' for the homeless so their kids can eat. To some £15 is half an hours pay, a trip to Costa or Starbucks, to other people £15 is their food shopping for a week. Ok sometimes people are just to lazy or too stupid to buy/use lights, but not always.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> I know people who have to get food from the food bank and often have to rely on the 'soup runs' for the homeless so their kids can eat


While fully accepting that these cases exist, I would be amazed if they account for even 0.1% of cyclists without lights.


----------



## tadpole (21 Jan 2014)

Trikeman said:


> While fully accepting that these cases exist, I would be amazed if they account for even 0.1% of cyclists without lights.


I often deal with 80+ homeless people when out on a "soup run"*, maybe 8 or 10 are cyclist 
(*Bristol Soup run Charity)


----------



## gaz (21 Jan 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> most pavement cyclists round here jump onto the road if they need to to, they just use a bike as a way to increase their walking speed.


That's essentially what the dutch class a bicycle as.


----------



## jarlrmai (21 Jan 2014)

I see a lot of "guys on bikes" when i'm commuting around Kirkby, guys in building site wear, riding really cheap mountain bikes with flat tyres and rusty chains very slowly on the pavement or off it moving wherever they want, ignoring all traffic signs, salmoning etc. No lights, no hat (not a problem for me), but basically no gear at all.

They don't look like they want to be on a bike at all, I guess either finances, practicality or the law means they have no choice, I bet they'd rather be in a car, is enjoying commuting by bike a well to do or a class thing?


----------



## sazzaa (21 Jan 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> I see a lot of "guys on bikes" when i'm commuting around Kirkby, guys in building site wear, riding really cheap mountain bikes with flat tyres and rusty chains very slowly on the pavement or off it moving wherever they want, ignoring all traffic signs, salmoning etc. No lights, no hat (not a problem for me), but basically no gear at all.
> 
> They don't look like they want to be on a bike at all, I guess either finances, practicality or the law means they have no choice, I bet they'd rather be in a car, is enjoying commuting by bike a well to do or a class thing?


 
We have junkies on bikes as well as "guys on bikes", it always amazes me when they do hills without getting out of breath.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> I often deal with 80+ homeless people when out on a "soup run"*, maybe 8 or 10 are cyclist (*Bristol Soup run Charity)


Right, and I see that many cyclists without lights in two sets of traffic lights. As I say, these will be an infinitesimally small percentage of those riding without lights.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jan 2014)

2884550 said:


> Do you ever ask any of them why they are without lights?


I used to; I don't bother any more.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

This topic is becoming almost as predictable as helmets. I suppose we should be glad it's more of a seasonal obsession than an all-year round one. I'm just going to link to an earlier post I made, on account of it being quite a good one, if I say it myself...


----------



## glenn forger (21 Jan 2014)

tadpole said:


> I know a few people who cannot find £10 for heating their homes for a week let alone £15, for something they can get away not having, hell I know people who have to get food from the food bank and often have to rely on the 'soup runs' for the homeless so their kids can eat. To some £15 is half an hours pay, a trip to Costa or Starbucks, to other people £15 is their food shopping for a week. Ok sometimes people are just to lazy or too stupid to buy/use lights, but not always.




I've seen a bloke on a £1200 Bianchi with no lights. Couldn't believe it.

(unlit cyclists only feature in 2% of accidents)


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> . Just slow down and look where you are going.



Only problem with this is expecting someone to slow down in case there is an unlit cyclist. It isn't going to happen. On a dark unlit road, weather is fine, they know the road, it is a national speed limit most car drivers will be doing the speed limit, they expect all other road users to take care in ensuring that they are seen, so will not expect the unlit cyclist to suddenly appear from the gloom.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> Only problem with this is expecting someone to slow down in case there is an unlit cyclist. It isn't going to happen. On a dark unlit road, weather is fine, they know the road, it is a national speed limit most car drivers will be doing the speed limit, they expect all other road users to take care in ensuring that they are seen, so will not expect the unlit cyclist to suddenly appear from the gloom.



It's on how unlit cyclists are on people's minds enough for them to bang on about them in the pub or the office or start endless threads about them on the interweb, but not enough for them to expect to encounter one on the road...


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

2884593 said:


> Whatever happened to the bit about being able to stop within the distance you can see?


In the real world that doesn't and won't happen!


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's on how unlit cyclists are on people's minds enough for them to bang on about them in the pub or the office or start endless threads about them on the interweb, but not enough for them to expect to encounter one on the road...


Agreed, but they still won't expect when it does happen even though they moan like mad about it!


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> In the real world that doesn't and won't happen!


You can help it along a bit by _expecting _drivers to able to stop within the distance they can see, and letting them know you expect it.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> Agreed, but they still won't expect when it does happen even though they moan like mad about it!


It doesn't wash. You're making excuses for them.


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> You can help it along a bit by _expecting _drivers to able to stop within the distance they can see, and letting them know you expect it.


I never expect any driver to see me so I try and ride accordingly.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> I never expect any driver to see me so I try and ride accordingly.


Sorry - I didn't mean expect in the sense of _think it likely_ - I meant expect in the active sense - as in "England expects..."


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> It doesn't wash. You're making excuses for them.


There is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist, unlit or not. I cycle and drive the same unlit roads on my commute, and I have driven past unlit cyclists that I didn't see until the last few seconds. I don't moan about them, I think they are daft but it is their life and their decision to cycle unlit. But in the real world, people and the courts will see an unlit cyclist being hit by a car as the cyclists fault. It doesn't matter if it is a right or wrong view, that is how society sees it.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jan 2014)

2884567 said:


> And what sort of reasons did they offer?


"Um, yeah" ... "I forgot"..."Can't be arsed, mate"..."There are street lights, aren't there?"..."I'm only going down the road"..."**** off"


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> There is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist, unlit or not. I cycle and drive the same unlit roads on my commute, and I have driven past unlit cyclists that I didn't see until the last few seconds. I don't moan about them, I think they are daft but it is their life and their decision to cycle unlit. But in the real world, people and the courts will see an unlit cyclist being hit by a car as the cyclists fault. It doesn't matter if it is a right or wrong view, that is how society sees it.



I can't argue with much of that, but none of it is inevitable or fixed for eternity. It's a product of the existing power relations on our roads - power relations which have an adverse impact on public space, social relations, and the soft flesh and breakable bones of human beings. Every time we collude in the obsessive focus on unlit cyclists (who harm no one, unless they are charging along without regard for pedestrians, which is a different issue) we put off asking the question that really matters - why those who bring danger to our roads cannot or will not take responsibility for that danger. Unqualified, absolute responsibility, with no ifs or buts.


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Jan 2014)

2884593 said:


> Whatever happened to the bit about being able to stop within the distance you can see?


Oi, that's my line......


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Jan 2014)

The 'only' thing that irritates me about unlit cyclists is the way some drivers lecture me about them because I'm a cyclist...like I am responsible for their lack of lights by association?

Like @theclaud eloquently put above, we have a seemingly all-powerful motoring body whose driving causes untold misery and harm to the communites they travel through, and despite the massive death and injury toll, they are held in high esteem by our society as a whole and are very unwilling to accept responsibilty for their actions. 

A quick research on most collisions reported in the news shows the same (tired) excuses, 'They came out of nowhere, I didn't know the road, they suddenly stopped, I was blinded by the sun, couldn't see for fog, I thought I had time to get past, he just stepped out in front of me....et al'

Now as much as I don't like 'ninjas' (because of the blame game) - I spot them very easily myself because I am actually driving and anticipating them being there. Much the same as I anticipate people/kids stepping out from behind buses, dogs running out from gardens, cars stopping suddenly and any manner of other scenarios that can crop up.

I would love the courts to actually start coming down a LOT harder on people convicted of motoring offences, because the whole, 'Oh woe is me' piffle they bleat all the time is getting a little boring now.


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Jan 2014)

cd365 said:


> In the real world that doesn't and won't happen!


Why on earth not, because that is the ONLY way collisions can be avoided.

Are you seriously suggesting we should accept vehicle crashes and write them off/excuse dangerous/careless driving because in the real world drivers don't leave enough room to stop?


----------



## Linford (21 Jan 2014)

asterix said:


> No, you need to be rich to do that successfully.



You mean like Leona Helmsley ?


----------



## glenn forger (21 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2884744, member: 45"]Ah, but how would they know?[/quote]

they're the ones lying on the road going "Ow".


----------



## cd365 (21 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Why on earth not, because that is the ONLY way collisions can be avoided.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting we should accept vehicle crashes and write them off/excuse dangerous/careless driving because in the real world drivers don't leave enough room to stop?


I'm not suggesting that at all, people at fault for harming others should be punished accordingly. UK courts are far to lenient on bad driving, lengthy bans should be used a lot more, especially for the "I didn't see them" brigade.

But in the real world society see's too much as a simple accident and only because they probably haven't seen the world from a cyclists point of view since they were a kid. I'm not saying this is right I'm saying this is what happens. The more people who take up cycling the better, then views will change but it will be a slow process. So in the meantime cyclists should not give the car fraternity the ability to get on their high horse about unlit cyclists.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2884740, member: 45"]It's not that a good one. I'd suggest that most unlit cyclists just can't be arsed.[/quote]
It doesn't matter a lot. If you're determined to be moralistic about it, you can't tell the ones that can't be arsed from those that have another reason. If you simply accept that you shouldn't run people over, it ceases to matter so much.


----------



## asterix (22 Jan 2014)

I have some rather good lights on my town bike. Cateye. Yesterday at the top of The Mount in York I was going straight across, light in my favour, my right of way blah, blah. Sod all difference, the car turning right, turned right! 

Either the driver wasn't looking at all or, in my opinion given appearances, thought it's only a cyclist, I'll make them give way.

Almost certainly they will then still feel entitled to moan about cyclists who RLJ, pavement cycle or have no lights. Because that's the sort of person who makes the most noise about anything.

In my experience of driving through town, I can see unlit cyclists under street lights. Unlit roads, it is a different matter but the same applies to pedestrians some of whom die because drivers travel at speeds beyond their ability to stop.


----------



## sazzaa (22 Jan 2014)

Took the car in this morning and on my (short) commute into town noticed two cyclists with cycling gear on but no lights... Can't think of a reason for this other than them thinking that luminous jackets are maybe ok to use instead of lights?


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jan 2014)

Its F***wits like these that give us all a bad name. I find that bellowing "LIGHTS" as you are just behind them effective but I wouldn't do it if there were pedestrians about as it quite startles the idiots " SHOCK & AWE"


----------



## sazzaa (22 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> I find that bellowing "LIGHTS" as you are just behind them effective


 
How is that effective if they don't have any? Do you track them down the next day to see if they bought lights?


----------



## asterix (22 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> You mean like Leona Helmsley ?



It's no Good, you Win! If I name an example of someone who got away with it, they'll bankrupt me*! Anyway it ain't that kinda Thred. 

*libel


----------



## Linford (22 Jan 2014)

2885571 said:


> Yes, it was the collective shame about casual speeding, amongst other crimes, that finally made me give up driving.




Are you sure it wasn't because you were knocking on the door of a ban and decided to remove the temptation to get caught using a mode which could result in that entitlement being removed by force ? 

I think you ought to learn some self restraint instead....


----------



## cd365 (22 Jan 2014)

Driving home late last night, I came up behind a cyclist just as I hit the City, he had an OK rear light on but his cycling trousers were amazing, they had so much reflective trim on the back of them it really stood out. I was so tempted to stop and ask him where he got them from.


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jan 2014)

No I don't check up on them I just like to rattle them a bit, like I said they give us all a bad name and most of em seem to be on Halfords £ 69-99 specials with dry chains, no brakes and wearing black hoodies. They frighten grannies and mothers with pushchairs/young children and if I had my way would be put into stocks and sprayed with WD40 along with bus drivers who overtake and then stop, taxi drivers and various other numpties.
Please don't put these comments down to me being some sort of Nazi as I am a Grauniad reading apolitical cyclist who regularly takes part in Leicesters monthly Critical Mass bikerides ( last Friday in every month outside the Curve theatre 6 pm if anyone else is interested) they just wind me up


----------



## Markymark (22 Jan 2014)

Cyclists' lights are to be seen by other people.

The fact that those that don't use them often use the reason that car drivers should only drive as fast as they can see completely misses the point that other road users include other cyclists, pedestrians. horseriders etc. It shows how self-serving their attitudes are as they're only concerned about their own safety.

To cycle without lights is incredibly selfish and dangerous as a pedestrian crossing the road may not see them, especially the old or young.


----------



## Linford (22 Jan 2014)

2885571 said:


> Yes, it was the collective shame about casual speeding, amongst other crimes, that finally made me give up driving.




Did you decide to jump rather than be pushed when deciding to ditch the car ?


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jan 2014)

Yeah childish I know but it gets it out of my system, mind you it does help being a biggish bloke with a loud voice who was taught how to "project" at school, imagine Brian Blessed shouting "OI" behind you.
" When I were a lad" the lovely men in blue ".did summat abaat it" now lifetime cyclists like me get tarred with the same brush as these feckers. I come across a lot of prejudice against cyclists every day and if I can startle one of these idiots I feel much better. I know I'm starting to rant now but pavements are for pedestrians and how are we supposed to be taken seriously as a viable method of transport with all the bad press that these idiots provoke?


----------



## Markymark (22 Jan 2014)

2885843 said:


> They can see the pedestrian though.


Yes, but a pedestrian could cross the road just in front of a cyclist they couldn't see (cyclist had no lights), cyclist would not have enough time to react of the pedestrian crossed without warning. This would be the fault of the cyclist?

Cyclist have a duty to have lights not just for them, but everyone lese they could potential injure.


----------



## Linford (22 Jan 2014)

2885984 said:


> I don't know but I do find it odd how cyclists voluntarily take on a collective guilt for the actions of a minority when other road user groupings don't do anything similar.



I look at the cycling vids posted up here from time to time, and the riders shout out the reg number of the driver who just gave them a punishment pass specifically identifying them as evidence....EG: Green Volvo...FB58 DFY

Imagine the pedestrian wearing a headcam shouting out an identifier of an unlit cyclist who nearly ran them over on the pavement....Errr, riding a mountain bike looks dark, maybe a Marin, wearing a hoodie, trackies and trainers.....

Do you see the problem and why every cyclist good and bad gets tarred with the actions of the few ?


----------



## glenn forger (22 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> Imagine the pedestrian wearing a headcam shouting out an identifier of an unlit cyclist who nearly ran them over on the pavement.



If this was a serious problem peds would star t wearing cameras for exactly that purpose. Pedestrians do not seem to be inclined to wear cameras because such events are astonishingly rare, peds aren't wearing cameras even though they are over 200 times more likely to be killed by a car on the pavement than a cyclist.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Jan 2014)

Got totally soaked by a van doing 30+ down a narrow 20 limit road walking to the doctors early in January, wished I had my camera on.


----------



## Linford (22 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> If this was a serious problem peds would star t wearing cameras for exactly that purpose. Pedestrians do not seem to be inclined to wear cameras because such events are astonishingly rare, peds aren't wearing cameras even though they are over 200 times more likely to be killed by a car on the pavement than a cyclist.



That makes it OK then


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Jan 2014)

No-one on here is defending bad cycling, and we regularly have a right old whinge about them, but as Adrian points out we (as cyclists in general) seem to get blamed and accept vicarious responsibility for the actions of the few (RLJ, Ninjas). But vehicle drivers don't get this, and moreover, they don't seem to want to take their own personal responsibility let alone holding their hands up to other driver's actions......

Henry Ford created a monster that has encased modern 'society' in a metal protective shell that seperates them from the communities they drive through. As cyclists we engage with those environments; we do not (contrary to DM belief) endanger them but provide a cheap, safe, clean, efficient, fun transport solution.

We are gathering a never before seen momentum of acceptability; and a number of motoring hacks/papers/slebs/comment columns do NOT like it, and do their best to tar us with the 'bad cyclist' brush.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> That makes it OK then



That's what I said, yes.


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Jan 2014)




----------



## Linford (22 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> No-one on here is defending bad cycling, and we regularly have a right old whinge about them, but as Adrian points out we (as cyclists in general) seem to get blamed and accept vicarious responsibility for the actions of the few (RLJ, Ninjas). But vehicle drivers don't get this, and moreover, they don't seem to want to take their own personal responsibility let alone holding their hands up to other driver's actions......
> 
> Henry Ford created a monster that has encased modern 'society' in a metal protective shell that seperates them from the communities they drive through. As cyclists we engage with those environments; we do not (contrary to DM belief) endanger them but provide a cheap, safe, clean, efficient, fun transport solution.
> 
> We are gathering a never before seen momentum of acceptability; and a number of motoring hacks/papers/slebs/comment columns do NOT like it, and do their best to tar us with the 'bad cyclist' brush.



The problem with pavement cycling is that it is the wrong type of engagement with the communities. Pedestrians are basically 'everyone'...they aren't a specific group in the way which cyclists, drivers, horseriders of motorcyclists are. As long as pavement cycling remains a criminal offence, then society will condemn it. We are all taught from a very young age that the pavement is where you walk unless you have no other choice. It should be a safe haven for pedestrians irrespective of which other way they choose to get around.

spindrift glenn forgers comparison/comment about more people being killed by cars is a ridiculous way of trying to defend the indefensible. Pavement cycling really is the Achilles heel of cycling. It manages to pee off pedestrians irrespective of whether they drive or not...they honestly don't give a toss that it is only done by a minority of cyclists, and the rest of us respect the reason why these pedestrian spaces have been made.....


----------



## glenn forger (22 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> comparison/comment about more people being killed by cars is a ridiculous way of trying to defend the indefensible.



It wasn't a defence, it was pointing out that your claim to speak for pedestrians is ludicrously inflating your self-importance. You don't speak for pedestrians, you have no idea what they are all thinking, and if the fear you pretend they have existed they'd be carrying cameras. They're not carrying cameras because they're not bothered. And if they wanted a spokesperson I don't reckon they'd pick you.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Jan 2014)

The Minister For Cycling agrees:



> Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boeteng's original guidance.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/20/police-cycling-pavements

The original guidance was issued by Paul Boateng the minister responsible at the time. He said:

The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.


----------



## Cubist (22 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> It doesn't matter a lot. If you're determined to be moralistic about it, you can't tell the ones that can't be arsed from those that have another reason. If you simply accept that you shouldn't run people over, it ceases to matter so much.


I'm going to plagiarise and paraphrase an article I once read, and I can't find original reference to it unfortunately, but here goes:

There is a bare minimum expectation of proper road use. If everyone who got behind the wheel of, or straddled any sort of vehicle, set out with the specific intention of "Today I will not injure or kill any other road user" the roads would be far, far safer. 

That has become a personal mantra. Courts and a vast proportion of road users are too quick to accept excuses, citing what one can reasonably expect to happen. That falls woefully short of an acceptable standard, and allows people to kill vulnerable road users in low sun, changing the radio station, emerging from unsighted junctions, crushing cyclists at junctions and so on. I am personally appalled at the casual acceptance of real people dying because some idiot was in a hurry, couldn't be bothered to check, took a chance etc etc etc. if you take time to reflect, that simple sentence I quoted above should be adopted as the standard of care when using any form of transport.


----------



## Cubist (22 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> No-one on here is defending bad cycling, and we regularly have a right old whinge about them, but as Adrian points out we (as cyclists in general) seem to get blamed and accept vicarious responsibility for the actions of the few (RLJ, Ninjas). But vehicle drivers don't get this, and moreover, they don't seem to want to take their own personal responsibility let alone holding their hands up to other driver's actions......
> 
> Henry Ford created a monster that has encased modern 'society' in a metal protective shell that seperates them from the communities they drive through. As cyclists we engage with those environments; we do not (contrary to DM belief) endanger them but provide a cheap, safe, clean, efficient, fun transport solution.
> 
> We are gathering a never before seen momentum of acceptability; and a number of motoring hacks/papers/slebs/comment columns do NOT like it, and do their best to tar us with the 'bad cyclist' brush.


I'd like to edit this into my post above, but the bastard iPad is a nightmare for that sorted thing......


----------



## sazzaa (22 Jan 2014)

Cubist said:


> I'm going to plagiarise and paraphrase an article I once read, and I can't find original reference to it unfortunately, but here goes:
> 
> There is a bare minimum expectation of proper road use. If everyone who got behind the wheel of, or straddled any sort of vehicle, set out with the specific intention of "Today I will not injure or kill any other road user" the roads would be far, far safer.
> 
> That has become a personal mantra. Courts and a vast proportion of road users are too quick to accept excuses, citing what one can reasonably expect to happen. That falls woefully short of an acceptable standard, and allows people to kill vulnerable road users in low sun, changing the radio station, emerging from unsighted junctions, crushing cyclists at junctions and so on. I am personally appalled at the casual acceptance of real people dying because some idiot was in a hurry, couldn't be bothered to check, took a chance etc etc etc. if you take time to reflect, that simple sentence I quoted above should be adopted as the standard of care when using any form of transport.



I have to be honest, I think my first few years of driving were shocking when I look back on them now. It's taken a couple of scares, other people having accidents and a realisation that driving dangerously rarely gets you anywhere faster, to make me chill out on the roads and take safety seriously. I think when you learn to drive, and right from the start, see how other road users act on a daily basis it somehow becomes the norm, and takes a bit of thinking to get yourself out of those awful habits.


----------



## Cubist (22 Jan 2014)

sazzaa said:


> I have to be honest, I think my first few years of driving were shocking when I look back on them now. It's taken a couple of scares, other people having accidents and a realisation that driving dangerously rarely gets you anywhere faster, to make me chill out on the roads and take safety seriously. I think when you learn to drive, and right from the start, see how other road users act on a daily basis it somehow becomes the norm, and takes a bit of thinking to get yourself out of those awful habits.


The actual mantra goes beyond being safe. That still leaves wriggle room for lapses in concentration, low sun, unlit cyclists and so on. What it is actually saying is being careful is not enough. It's accepting responsibility and acknowledging that you, and only you, must take absolute responsibility for the safety of others, proactively using the road in such a way as will not cause "accidents" and going out of your way to avoid risk to other people. 

If we accept this we find ourselves away from the all too common, "yes, I hit the other car/ped/child/cyclist" but it was their fault because..........." Or (worse in my view) "it wasn't my fault, it was because the council painted the bins the wrong colour, or because the cyclist wasn't wearing hi viz."


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jan 2014)

I'd still like to see the idiots in town centre stocks every courthouse used to have them


----------



## sazzaa (22 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> I'd still like to see the idiots in town centre stocks every courthouse used to have them



Who do you vote for?


----------



## raleighnut (22 Jan 2014)

I used to vote Labour now I follow the great Milligna's advice "Don't vote it only encourages the b_ggers Mind you my MP is Keith Vaz nuff said


----------



## semislickstick (22 Jan 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Henry Ford created a monster that has encased modern 'society' in a metal protective shell that seperates them from the communities they drive through.



*cough* Wasn't it Mercedes and Benz though? (Q.I said so, so it must be true  )


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (24 Jan 2014)

semislickstick said:


> *cough* Wasn't it Mercedes and Benz though? (Q.I said so, so it must be true  )



Karl Benz?


----------



## semislickstick (24 Jan 2014)

SomethingLikeThat said:


> Karl Benz?


Oh ok,


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> I'd still like to see the idiots in town centre stocks every courthouse used to have them


Pillory is still legal! And I think the stocks are in Scotland, but not England/Wales/Northern Ireland.


----------



## summerdays (25 Jan 2014)

I noticed in the news the different way the helicopter crash was dealt with:

This states that where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land, by an aircraft while in flight, the owners of that aircraft are strictly liable.

In essence, the Act directs that the aircraft owner shall be treated as having caused the crash and the victims are automatically entitled to compensation without having to prove anything

Quoted from the BBC news story on it this week.​
Why can't some of that responsibility be taken by drivers (and cyclists).


----------



## raleighnut (26 Jan 2014)

classic33 said:


> Pillory is still legal! And I think the stocks are in Scotland, but not England/Wales/Northern Ireland.


My heritage is from Scotland and pillory is the best way of dealing with these idiots
Fixed penalty fine NO
Gaol Don't think so!!!! 
Public ridicule ,Sounds about right
I,m leaving this topic as I must attend my yoghurt knitting class (its hair shirts this week) Just DO NOT get me started on cycle thieves.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> I noticed in the news the different way the helicopter crash was dealt with:
> 
> This states that where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land, by an aircraft while in flight, the owners of that aircraft are strictly liable.
> 
> ...


What would you do if you leant your bike to someone & they caused an accident?


----------



## summerdays (26 Jan 2014)

classic33 said:


> What would you do if you leant your bike to someone & they caused an accident?


Well I would know who I lent it to! The point I was making that the aircraft industry seem to take some responsibility for themselves, why can't others.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> Well I would know who I lent it to! The point I was making that the aircraft industry seem to take some responsibility for themselves, why can't others.


With the aircraft industry though they're not really looking out/after you. Its more a case of protecting their own reputations & in the event of an accident looking to place the blame onto something/someone else.
Recalls are fairly common within the automotive industry as manufacturers seek to protect their reputations first.


----------



## Martin p (26 Jan 2014)

I have been cycling on paths quite a bit since being knocked off on a roundabout . Most of the paths have adjacent cycle paths that seem to disappear from one side of the road to the other . Dont see a problem with it if you are visable & mindful of others on the paths . Its been a good way to get some confidence back after the accident .:-)


----------

