# Starting to develop a dislike for A.M. joggers



## Sheldon Bourgeois (10 Oct 2012)

I try to be a safe rider. Lights on the bike, wear reflective gear. I do all I can to be seen. However, I can not say the same for most joggers I'm passing "or should I say avoiding" during my morning commute to work lately.

The last 3 KM of my ride are mostly on an old railway line that runs through the woods, and at 6 A.M. it's pitch black outside. The ride passes through some marshy areas and this morning was very foggy and hard to see. I almost took out a jogger, and that jogger then gave me an earful. I had to stop, turn around and give it right back to her. I just don't know what would possess a person to go for an A.M. jog through the woods, dressed in black, no reflective anything and not even a candle of a light. 3 times now I've come up on people in a hurry because of this.

Is it me??? Are joggers becoming unintelligent during there evolution? What gives??????


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

Most of my running is in the dark on weeknights, i've never really thought of it as a problem. Most running gear particularly shoes has plenty of reflectives on though.

What front lights are you using, when i ride around a popular running spot in the dark, the light from two magicshines shows up runners way in advance - quite often makes them jump off the path to the grass wondering wtf is approaching as everything lights up around them


----------



## snorri (11 Oct 2012)

Yes it's you, you say you try to be a safe rider, but it's not only your own safety you have to think of but that of other path/road users you may meet on your journey. Particular care is required on paths shared by cyclists and people on foot.
Get yourself a decent front light that will illuminate hazards ahead and adjust your speed to match the weather, light conditions and other traffic.
You deserved to get an earful from the jogger, her behaviour was understandable in the situation you describe. 
You admit to three instances of near collision with a jogger....how many repeats will it take before you realise you are cycling recklessly?
Joggers are under no obligation to wear lighting and it's a bit bold of you to question the intelligence of joggers in general.
Be a more considerate cyclist, you could be giving the rest of us a bad name..


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

snorri said:


> Yes it's you, you say you try to be a safe rider, but it's not only your own safety you have to think of but that of other path/road users you may meet on your journey. Particular care is required on paths shared by cyclists and people on foot.
> Get yourself a decent front light that will illuminate hazards ahead and adjust your speed to match the weather, light conditions and other traffic.
> You deserved to get an earful from the jogger, her behaviour was understandable in the situation you describe.
> You admit to three instances of near collision with a jogger....how many repeats will it take before you realise you are cycling recklessly?
> ...


 

My first thought when I read this is "Are you for real?" Then I realized you must also be a jogger....... 

To make the assumption by reading my post that I must have inadequate lighting or as you say " am riding recklessly" is an unintelligent assumption. Therefore I'll assume, from you're post, that you are rationally challenged and speak before you think.

And to say that I'm giving cyclists a bad name??? Since you're the Uber member, I'll bow before you in shame. Be kinda hard though while you're sitting way up there on your high horse.

Lastly, in your part of the world things may be different, but in my neck of the woods joggers ARE responsible to wear lighting and reflective material. You'd think it would be a common sense issue, but once again in your part of the world maybe there is no such thing as common sense ????


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

I wear a headtorch when i go through the woods and a red cateye on my backpack. Maybe these people are vampires, wear garlic and see what happens


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> I wear a headtorch when i go through the woods and a red cateye on my backpack. Maybe these people are vampires, wear garlic and see what happens


 
I've got 2 Planet Bike Beemer 3's up front, 2 lights out back "Planet Bike and a BEAMBUG" which I thought gave decent lighting considering my top speed on these back trails in the morning is around 15-18 km/h. Could be the fog though that's making them hard to see as well. A buddy of mine told me to get a HEDI???? light as they are super bright so I'm going to pick one up this weekend and give it a whirl.


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> I've got 2 Planet Bike Beemer 3's up front, 2 lights out back "Planet Bike and a BEAMBUG" which I thought gave decent lighting considering my top speed on these back trails in the morning is around 15-18 km/h. Could be the fog though that's making them hard to see as well. A buddy of mine told me to get a HEDI???? light as they are super bright so I'm going to pick one up this weekend and give it a whirl.


 
On 'Runners Forum' a lot of joggers wear head torches and flashing armbands. It makes sense to be as visible as possible when your in poor light or fog, it helps to stop you getting knocked down.

Guess some people think that they have no responsibility for there own safety. I wear one of these, one click gives a single red beam, two clicks gives a double white beam, it's bright and saves me from stepping in poop.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

I notice quite a few runners that wear something similar. I see them off in the distance, sometimes assume it's a fellow biker if I don't notice the "up/down" motion of the light. Seeing them lets me know what's coming and too be extra careful upon approach, much the same as I would treat a fellow biker.

You'd think if you were running in the woods on a twisty trail you'd make sure to have some sort of safety lighting.


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

I get a heart attack every time some one runs past in the dark. There going to end up breaking bones, not being able to see properly. Wish people would be more considerate of others


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

I would look at upgrading your lights for pitch black night riding, google suggests the uprated v2 Beemer 3s are only 21 lumens, a T6 magicshine clone light would have maybe 50 times the light output and make a huge difference on trails and probably only cost the equivilent of £30.

I honestly cant imagine relying on other people to be lit up even if they should be, there's always plenty of joggers, walkers, dog walkers with tripwires, some unlit cyclists, chavs here and hardly any of them have any kind of lighting but its no problem riding full daytime speed if you have appropriate lighting


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

Can't see the point why, they all ready have more than enough of lighting system set up. A person wants to act irresponsibly then why should someone else brunt the cost.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

MrJamie said:


> I would look at upgrading your lights for pitch black night riding, google suggests the uprated v2 Beemer 3s are only 21 lumens, a T6 magicshine clone light would have maybe 50 times the light output and make a huge difference on trails and probably only cost the equivilent of £30.
> 
> I honestly cant imagine relying on other people to be lit up even if they should be, there's always plenty of joggers, walkers, dog walkers with tripwires, some unlit cyclists, chavs here and hardly any of them have any kind of lighting but its no problem riding full daytime speed if you have appropriate lighting


 
I'm a jogger too. But there's no way I'd ever even consider going outside at night without wearing reflective clothing (although I only run during the day). All the runners I know around here wear high-viz jackets and sport a head-torch. To say it's Sheldon's fault isn't fair. So he doesn't have a magichsine? Come on! How long have these powerful lights been around? When I first started commuting the most powerful light I could get hold of was an Everready lamp! It was quite adequate then. Does the existence of ultra-powerful - probably too powerful - lights on the market now move the goal posts? Sheldon is kitted out appropriately; it's the joggers in this situation who need to be aware that they're sharing with cyclists and so adapt an appropriate attire.


----------



## MacB (11 Oct 2012)

You're riding on a shared use path get over it, this is like cycling on the pavement and complaining about pedestrians not being lit up.


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> You're riding on a shared use path get over it, this is like cycling on the pavement and complaining about pedestrians not being lit up.


 
No it's not


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2012)

Perhaps the joggers aren't being very responsible, I'd certainly agree with you on that. OTOH what about your responsibility to ride at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear? If you can't see a jogger, how are you going to see a fallen tree across the path?


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> You're riding on a shared use path get over it, this is like cycling on the pavement and complaining about pedestrians not being lit up.


 
No it's not. The only people who should be on the pavement are pedestrians, so they don't need lights, whilst in this situation it's a shared path. Shared path means shared responsibility: cyclists have to beware of pedestrians, which means they must have lights and not bomb past pedestrians, giving no space; pedestrians must beware of cyclists, which means they must wear adeqaute clothing.



BentMikey said:


> If you can't see a jogger, how are you going to see a fallen tree across the path?


 
Good point. But a fallen tree isn't at risk, only the cyclist risks getting hurt. In the OPs situation, the joggers are at risk, which is why they should wear reflective clothing.


----------



## Dan B (11 Oct 2012)

On most (all?) shared use paths in the UK, pedestrians have priority and cyclists should give way. That's afaik the law, and it's also the right thing: the cyclist is going faster and therefore bringing the danger, so is also responsible for mitigating it


----------



## Dayvo (11 Oct 2012)

Another problem with pedestrians on shared pathways is their use of iPods or similar.

Not only can't they hear your approaching (most often by using a bell), but they have a tendency to wander across the path, instead of keeping to one side, make an overtake difficult for the cyclist.

Yes, they may have right of way, but they have a responsibility for their own safety, too.


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> I'm a jogger too. But there's no way I'd ever even consider going outside at night without wearing reflective clothing (although I only run during the day). All the runners I know around here wear high-viz jackets and sport a head-torch. To say it's Sheldon's fault isn't fair. So he doesn't have a magichsine? Come on! How long have these powerful lights been around? When I first started commuting the most powerful light I could get hold of was an Everready lamp! It was quite adequate then. Does the existence of ultra-powerful - probably too powerful - lights on the market now move the goal posts? Sheldon is kitted out appropriately; it's the joggers in this situation who need to be aware that they're sharing with cyclists and so adapt an appropriate attire.


I didn't say it was Sheldon's fault at all I was just trying to be practical by suggesting that since he/we can't really change the behaviour of the unlit users, his best option is probably to upgrade to a more powerful light. It seem's he's also come to the same conclusion and is going for an upgrade 

Since you ask my opinion  I don't think you need to buy the latest lights but I think its important to ride at a speed within which you can stop well within visable distance for hazards, which if you're crashing into unlit people probably isn't the case.



Oldspice said:


> Can't see the point why, they all ready have more than enough of lighting system set up. A person wants to act irresponsibly then why should someone else brunt the cost.


Maybe im spoilt with modern lighting, but I think riding a pitch black woodland path with a weak light (originally rated at 12 lumens!) is a long way from having "more than enough lighting".


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

First off, if you’re kitted up to ride, why can you not see them? You’ve got lights, it’s dark, surely any kind of movement will alert you to the fact you’re not alone.
Secondly
Imagine you’re a woman running alone, in the dark early in the morning, what would you think was safer
Run with a (cap) light which destroys your night vision, so all you can see it that tiny patch of light bobbing in front of you, but nothing else, and marks you out as a slow moving target for anyone motionless in the dark.
Or 
Run without a light on a track you know, with perfectly adequate night vision, unseen by anyone who is motionless in the dark.
It is sometimes safer to ninja run for women. You, as a cyclist, should take responsibility for seeing obstacles in your way, and either slow down so you can react to them, or light up so you can see them. 
I’m not a woman not a jogger either, but it makes sense to me, that sometimes not being seen means not being a target.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> sometimes not being seen means not being a target.


 
If I'm a cyclist wearing ninja clothing at night and don't have lights and I get hit by a car I can't complain that it's the driver's fault; if a jogger running down an unlit shared cycle path gets hit by a cyclist then (s)he must accept that they should do what they can to be seen. As for the Sheldon not seeing them automatically implying that he's going to fast argument - just when do you think you'd see an unlit jogger in the pitch black? Not until you're darn close is what I'm thinking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them. What about helmets? What do these people think they are doing just running and walking about? Are they insane?

Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'

GET A GRIP PEOPLE; GET A GRIP.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz


 
Yes - well high-viz clothing anyway. I mean, if a pedestrian walks on an unlit road at night wearing black and not carrying a torch (I mean the road, not the pavement) we'd think he or she was balmy. The same applies here.




GregCollins said:


> so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them.


 
No - cyclists must adapt their behaviour too - the responsibility is shared on a shared path.



GregCollins said:


> Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'


 
As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> If I'm a cyclist wearing ninja clothing at night and don't have lights and I get hit by a car I can't complain that it's the driver's fault; if a jogger running down an unlit shared cycle path gets hit by a cyclist then (s)he must accept that they should do what they can to be seen. As for the Sheldon not seeing them automatically implying that he's going to fast argument - just when do you think you'd see an unlit jogger in the pitch black? Not until you're darn close is what I'm thinking.


I cycle along an area of unlit cycle path everyday and can see ninja walkers and ninja dogs, and even the odd ninja runner, how? Because I look for them, I'm thinking about what I am doing. AS for the going too fast, if Sheldon does not have the time to react, then yes he is going too fast for the conditions he is riding in.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> I cycle along an area of unlit cycle path everyday and can see ninja walkers and ninja dogs, and even the odd ninja runner, how? Because I look for them, I'm thinking about what I am doing. AS for the going too fast, if Sheldon does not have the time to react, then yes he is going too fast for the conditions he is riding in.


 
Agreed that cyclists must always be on the alert and adapt his behaviour/speed in this circumstance. But it's such an easy gest to put a reflective jacket on. They weigh nothing, they cost nothing, they can fit in your pocket, and they really make you stand out. Surely, if you're the vulnerable road (or pavement, or whatever) user, then you should do your best to help faster, less vulnerable users see you. I'm not saying that the cylist doesn't have any responisibility in this sort of case - but what I am saying is that if I risked getting hit, I'd take appropriate measures to help prevent that happening.


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.



Sorry but your example is not valid, the runner/jogger was not on an unlit main road, there is no comparison between a ninja cyclist on a main road and an unlit runner on a cycle path/shared path.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Yes - well high-viz clothing anyway. I mean, if a pedestrian walks on an unlit road at night wearing black and not carrying a torch (I mean the road, not the pavement) we'd think he or she was balmy. The same applies here.


 
Barmy. Eh? No I'd think they were normal people doing normal things and expect other roads users to behave in a way that considers the possibility of their presence. I've come across hundreds of such folk when driving. Never hit one.



> No - cyclists must adapt their behaviour too - the responsibility is shared on a shared path.


so ride slower then. end of. and where do you get this shared responsibility nonsense from. peds are there of right, we're the ones intruding, given permission in law to be there in most cases. The cyclist represents the greater risk. They carry the greater part of any responsibility.




> As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.


 
If that happened the conclusion I'd draw is the driver who has headlights and ABS, and who should have been driving in a manner appropriate to their stopping distance and the possibility of other road users being present, some of whom may be unlit and not wearing hi-viz is probably 99%, at least, to blame.

Far too many cyclists bring a driver's mindset to their cycling and treat pedestrians just like drivers treat cyclists. That won't do.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> Sorry but your example is not valid, the runner/jogger was not on an unlit main road, there is no comparison between a ninja cyclist on a main road and an unlit runner on a cycle path/shared path.


 
May I draw your attention to this:



Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> The last 3 KM of my ride are mostly on an old railway line that runs through the woods, and at 6 A.M. it's *pitch black* outside. The ride passes through some marshy areas and this morning* was very foggy and hard to see*.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Agreed that cyclists must always be on the alert and adapt his behaviour/speed in this circumstance. But it's such an easy gest to put a reflective jacket on. They weigh nothing, they cost nothing, they can fit in your pocket, and they really make you stand out. Surely, if you're the vulnerable road (or pavement, or whatever) user, then you should do your best to help faster, less vulnerable users see you. I'm not saying that the cylist doesn't have any responisibility in this sort of case - but what I am saying is that if I risked getting hit, I'd take appropriate measures to help prevent that happening.


 
hi-viz in the dark is useless unless something illuminates it.

the same level of illumination makes even a ninja visible.

that's how lights work.

vehicles, including bicycles, should not be travelling faster than their operators can see.


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> and they really make you stand out..


My earlier point was that, some people who run, don’t want to stand out, they perceive rightly or wrongly that they are safer not being seen by neds and scrotes rapists and muggers. Given the low risk of being meeting someone else on the shared path at that time in the morning, and the even lower risk of being run down by in inattentive cyclist, compared to the ‘perceived’ high risk of being raped or mugged or even just mocked/ insulted, some women runner, I think, take what they think of as the lesser of two evils, and ninja run.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

quote="GregCollins, post: 2091744, member: 5193"]hi-viz in the dark is useless unless something illuminates it.

the same level of illumination makes even a ninja visible.

that's how lights work.

vehicles, including bicycles, should not be travelling faster than their operators can see.[/quote]


He may not have the most powerful lights on the market at present, but he does have lights. They're more than adequate to make the high-viz jacket stand out. It may not make the jogger visible from a kilometre away, but he would be visible sooner than wearing nothing at all.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> My earlier point was that, some people who run, don’t want to stand out, they perceive rightly or wrongly that they are safer not being seen by neds and scrotes rapists and muggers. Given the low risk of being meeting someone else on the shared path at that time in the morning, and the even lower risk of being run down by in inattentive cyclist, compared to the ‘perceived’ high risk of being raped or mugged or even just mocked/ insulted, some women runner, I think, take what they think of as the lesser of two evils, and ninja run.


 
Fair enough - but if they do this not to be seen, they should be prepared not to be seen!


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

I've got to go to work now. Darn! This thread is getting interesting!


----------



## MacB (11 Oct 2012)

If it was foggy and hard to see then you slow down...no point using bang on your head smilies etc, I know exactly what I'm saying and I know exactly what those demanding a 'shared responsibility' to useage want....their cake and eat it would be a fairly accurate assessment.

If I'm not on the road then I expect that I can come across all manners of people in all manners of clothing, plus quite a few dogs and some occasional wildlife.

If you lack the skills to be able to negotiate offroad riding without mowing people down then you need some training.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

No, that is definetely not my attitude. I cycle 30kms to work every morning, and 30 kms back again in a very rural area. For most of my commute (about 2/3s) there are is no lighting at all. Dark, very dark, and difficult to see. I adapt my riding. I go through the odd (badly lit) village and slow down. I do not presume that anything that happens is the others fault. I try to be respectful and careful to everyone. But if conditions are really bad, ie fog or whatever, I try doubly hard not only to not hit anything, but also not to get hit myself. Sometimes that means I don't cycle in. Every road user has a responsibility to others; and every road user has a responsibility to themselves.

But now I really must go! I'm running late!


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> May I draw your attention to this:





Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> The last 3 KM of my ride are mostly on an old railway line that runs through the woods, and at 6 A.M. it's pitch black outside. The ride passes through some marshy areas and this morning was very foggy and hard to see.



Pointing this out is not helping his case, it’s making it even more obvious that he was riding beyond the road conditions and his ability to see and react.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Good point. But a fallen tree isn't at risk, only the cyclist risks getting hurt. In the OPs situation, the joggers are at risk, which is why they should wear reflective clothing.


 
To be frank, the jogger isn't at much risk either. Much of the time when a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it's the cyclist that comes off far worse. Not always, mind.

Your post still misses the point that the OP needs to ride more slowly, since his current speed and attitude aren't suitable for the conditions as described in his post.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them. What about helmets? What do these people think they are doing just running and walking about? Are they insane?
> 
> Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'
> 
> GET A GRIP PEOPLE; GET A GRIP.


 
I was thinking that too.

But if you read bentmikey's post it's not quite as black and white is it? On the road we have a responsibility to ride in a way that mitigates risk, e.g with lights on when it is dark (remove the law for a moment), so there is something to be said for runners wearing something that helps them to be seen.

I guess it depends what you mean by a shared path as well. Shared responsibility?


----------



## fossyant (11 Oct 2012)

Shared use paths - simple - you slow down. You know there will be joggers. Best way is to get some very good lighting if it's pitch black, i.e. those that turn night into day. You'll get shouted at be joggers for blinding them, but at least you can see them.  Runners/pedestrians do not have to wear reflective gear, bright clothes - it's life. You want to see them, get big lights.

As BM says above, if you struggle to see a runner of over 5 feet high, dressed in black, how are you going to see a fallen branch or a rock ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

fossyant said:


> Shared use paths - simple - you slow down. You know there will be joggers. Best way is to get some very good lighting if it's pitch black, i.e. those that turn night into day. You'll get shouted at be joggers for blinding them, but at least you can see them.  Runners/pedestrians do not have to wear reflective gear, bright clothes - it's life. You want to see them, get big lights.
> 
> As BM says above, if you struggle to see a runner of over 5 feet high, dressed in black, how are you going to see a fallen branch or a rock ?


Potholes should be dressed in hi-viz, and dogs too, and deer, why they must have lights on their antlers. abandoned fridges and mattresses are to be fitted with Cree LED lights, and mums with strollers can have hazard warning lights fitted. It's the future.


----------



## fossyant (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Potholes should be dressed in hi-viz, and dogs too, and deer, why they must have lights on their antlers. abandoned fridges and mattresses are to be fitted with Cree LED lights, and mums with strollers can have hazard warning lights fitted. It's the future.


 
Prams with underbody running lights like 'street cars'. Cool !


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

I'm of the opinion that if you go out at night in dark clothing in an unlit area you deserve what happens to you.

How sodding stupid do you have to be? If you jog regularly then you know the paths you use are either empty or have other traffic on it. If it has nothing on it, then fine. If it has other stuff on it the onus is on you to make yourself visible (like everybody else, might I add). If you don't then you have no right to moan about getting stick for it.

I see far too many people in black clothes at night and I do wonder when Darwin will catch up with them.


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm of the opinion that if you go out at night in dark clothing in an unlit area you deserve what happens to you.
> 
> How sodding stupid do you have to be? If you jog regularly then you know the paths you use are either empty or have other traffic on it. If it has nothing on it, then fine. If it has other stuff on it the onus is on you to make yourself visible (like everybody else, might I add). If you don't then you have no right to moan about getting stick for it.
> 
> I see far too many people in black clothes at night and I do wonder when Darwin will catch up with them.


 Why is it the Joggers fault if the cyclist is out of control?


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> Why is it the Joggers fault if the cyclist is out of control?


 
What if they aren't? What if they're just riding along in a straight line at a reasonable pace and they come across some knob dressed in all black at half 5 in the morning?

How is that the cyclist's fault?


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> What if they aren't? What if they're just riding along in a straight line at a reasonable pace and they come across some knob dressed in all black at half 5 in the morning?
> 
> How is that the cyclist's fault?


 
By his own words we know that is not true, 


Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> The last 3 KM of my ride are mostly on an old railway line that runs through the woods, and at 6 A.M. it's pitch black outside. The ride passes through some marshy areas and this morning was very foggy and hard to see.


Riding too fast in bad conditions dispaite know it is an area prone to fog, so both visibility is compromised as is the ability to stop. 


Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> 3 times now I've come up on people in a hurry because of this.


Not the first time he’s nearly run down someone at speed. 
So he knows there are people about and still rides at an inappropriate speed. 
The onus is on the person who 'approaches the danger' to take avoiding actions, and knowing that there is the possibility of a dangerous condition up a head, it is your responsibility to avoid it by anticipation, planning, preparation, learning and evaluation.


----------



## theclaud (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> What if they aren't? What* if they're just riding along in a straight line at a reasonable pace* and they come across some knob dressed in all black at half 5 in the morning?
> 
> How is that the cyclist's fault?


 
If they're going at a reasonable pace for their lighting and the conditions, then by definition they won't hit someone, irrespective of what that person is wearing.


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

Is this thread for real, it's not some kind of wind up is it?

If it isn't, it's so dumb as to not be worth answering.


----------



## fossyant (11 Oct 2012)

I'd blame Wiggle personally !


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

LOL pitch black, foggy yet it is the joggers fault the cyclist has crap lights.


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> If they're going at a reasonable pace for their lighting and the conditions, then by definition they won't hit someone, irrespective of what that person is wearing.


 
Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs). 

If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?

Answer is - it isn't.


----------



## ohnovino (11 Oct 2012)

If you're travelling quickly enough that you can't react in time to a hazard, then that's an unreasonable pace. Doesn't matter what number the speedo shows, or who's fault the hazard is.


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

Finding some of the responses on here a little strange.

It's a fact, is it not, that if you're wearing dark clothing in the dark then you are difficult to see - whether you have a car headlight or a bike light.

I don't think you can blame a cyclist or motorist - people in dark clothing in the dark are hard to see... full stop!


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs).
> 
> If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?
> 
> Answer is - it isn't.


 
So if there was a tree fallen over on the route then would it be the tress fault or the cyclists if he hit it ? If the OP is unable to see hazards then they need better lights and to slow down.


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

4F said:


> So if there was a tree fallen over on the route then would it be the tress fault or the cyclists if he hit it ? If the OP is unable to see hazards then they need better lights and to slow down.


 
For want of being pedantic, couldn't you argue it's the fault of those responsible for the upkeep of the path/road?

You make a fair point, but I can understand the alternative view also.


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs).
> 
> If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?
> 
> Answer is - it isn't.


Stop being a numpty.


----------



## buddha (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> ...I just don't know what would possess a person to go for an A.M. jog *through the woods*, dressed in black, no reflective anything and not even a candle of a light...


People have been going through "the woods", on foot, without reflectives and lights for thousands of years. What's changed is you on your bike. Maybe your attitude needs to change too.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

if a ped is coming from the opposite direction, what are the chances of the runner running into a ped?

Or another runner rather than a ped?


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

May I offer a solution to this?

Aside from improving your lighting, I feel that a nice, loud singing of The Teddy Bears' Picnic should suffice. Altogether now:

*If you go down to the woods today, *
*You're sure of a big surprise*

The perfect warning for 'hidden' joggers and a joyful way to start or end your day.


----------



## davefb (11 Oct 2012)

when I was younger, it was "common ruddy sense" to make sure you got seen.. cue tv ads about wearing light clothes and having a newspaper ( okay so mainly relating to not being hit by cars)

nowadays it's "ITS MY RIGHT TO BE ALL NINJA LIKE"


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

4F said:


> So if there was a tree fallen over on the route then would it be the tress fault or the cyclists if he hit it ? If the OP is unable to see hazards then they need better lights and to slow down.


 
That's a stationary object - a tree, for Christ's Sake. A tree cannot buy lights or reflective clothing, don't be pedantic.



Crackle said:


> Stop being a numpty.


 
I'm not. If somebody WILLIINGLY runs in the dark in black clothing then they're a dick.


----------



## Maz (11 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Maybe these people are vampires, wear garlic and see what happens


 Or just ride a cross bike and watch them cower in fear.


----------



## Graham (11 Oct 2012)

Trying to find a similar situation:

A car drives down a country lane at night which doesn't have a pavement (so the road is 'shared' by cars and pedestrians). The car is driving only with its side lights on through fog at 50mph. The car hits a pedestrian. This must be the driver's fault as he has not adjusted his speed so that he can react to what is on the road in front of him. If the pedestrian is wearing black clothes, they may have contributed to their own downfall, but the original fault lies with the driver.

This is similar to the cyclist.


----------



## redcard (11 Oct 2012)

buddha said:


> People have been going through "the woods", on foot, without reflectives and lights for thousands of years. What's changed is you on your bike. Maybe your attitude needs to change too.




There's some ridiculous arguments on this thread, but this one takes the biscuit.


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

Graham said:


> Trying to find a similar situation:
> 
> A car drives down a country lane at night which doesn't have a pavement (so the road is 'shared' by cars and pedestrians). The car is driving only with its side lights on through fog at 50mph. The car hits a pedestrian. This must be the driver's fault as he has not adjusted his speed so that he can react to what is on the road in front of him. If the pedestrian is wearing black clothes, they may have contributed to their own downfall, but the original fault lies with the driver.
> 
> This is similar to the cyclist.


 
I think yes - in a court of law, the majority of the liability would be with the driver.

However, it wouldn't be 100% - so common sense says that both parties are at least in part responsible for seeing/being seen.

A runner in dark clothing in the dark on a shared path is an idiot in my view, regardless of where the liability stands.


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> That's a stationary object - a tree, for Christ's Sake. A tree cannot buy lights or reflective clothing, don't be pedantic.


 
If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.


----------



## green1 (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs).
> 
> If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?
> 
> Answer is - it isn't.


So if you run in to a deer you should run after it and get it's details?
If your black car parked up an the side of the unlit road I suppose you'd expect the side of it to be caved in when you got back to it and that would be ok?
If you can't react to danger by travelling too fast or having crap lights it's your fault no one elses.


----------



## theclaud (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Not so. *Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs)*.
> 
> If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?
> 
> Answer is - it isn't.


 
Any speed is only reasonable when the cyclist can see that it's safe and clear to go at that speed. People should be able to go walking or jogging without cyclists crashing into them, whatever they are wearing.


----------



## redcard (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> That's a stationary object - a tree, for Christ's Sake. A tree cannot buy lights or reflective clothing, don't be pedantic.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. If somebody WILLIINGLY runs in the dark in black clothing then they're a dick.



What about a pothole? Always the riders fault if they hit one, right?


----------



## snorri (11 Oct 2012)

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106284-Jogging-Gun


----------



## redcard (11 Oct 2012)

4F said:


> If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.



What about a puncture? Always the riders fault?


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

4F said:


> If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.


 http://www.biketechshop.com/planet-bike-beamer-3-bike-headlight-p-2412.html 12 lumens output, 100 hours runtime on 2AAs. Visability in pitch black foggy conditions with a light like that must be pretty terrible at any decent speed.

Hopefully Sheldon will get his new lights, be very impressed and err... see the light


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

redcard said:


> What about a puncture? Always the riders fault?


 
What about a puncture, how is that even relevant ? 





redcard said:


> There's some ridiculous arguments on this thread, but this one takes the biscuit.


 you said it


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

MrJamie said:


> http://www.biketechshop.com/planet-bike-beamer-3-bike-headlight-p-2412.html 12 lumens output, 100 hours runtime on 2AAs. Visability in pitch black foggy conditions with a light like that must be pretty terrible at any decent speed.
> 
> Hopefully Sheldon will get his new lights, be very impressed and err... see the light


 
I think the description of that light says it all 
"the Beamer 3 is an economical light for cyclists who want to be seen, and occasionally need a little more light to see by"


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> if a ped is coming from the opposite direction, what are the chances of the runner running into a ped?
> 
> Or another runner rather than a ped?


 
Anyone answer this? In particular, 2 runners going in opposite directions.


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm not. If somebody WILLIINGLY runs in the dark in black clothing then they're a dick.


You cycle on the road, knowing that is it dangerous to be on the road without a heavy steel box round you. so if you’re daft enough to do that and someone runs into because SMiDSY it's your fault for willingly putting yourself in danger, and the conclusion must be the same.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> You cycle on the road, knowing that is it dangerous to be on the road without a heavy steel box round you. so if you’re daft enough to do that and someone runs into because SMiDSY it's your fault for willingly putting yourself in danger, and the conclusion must be the same.


 
without lights to be comparable.


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

I'm going to show myself the door as everybody apparently didn't take their blinkers off when they got out of bed this morning and you're picking holes where none are to be picked.

A deer is the same as a jogger? Really?

Morons.


----------



## 4F (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Anyone answer this? In particular, 2 runners going in opposite directions.


 
In my experience running in the dark it does not take long for your eye sight to become accustomed to the light conditions and you can still see pretty well. Given that your moving speed is a lot less then I cannot see this being an issue.


----------



## Graham (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Anyone answer this? In particular, 2 runners going in opposite directions.


 
No chance at all?


----------



## goo_mason (11 Oct 2012)

As has been said on this thread a few times, shared use = shared responsibility. Simples

All users should take responsibility for ensuring their own safety and the safety of other users. Problem solved.

Next?


----------



## green1 (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm going to show myself the door as everybody apparently didn't take their blinkers off when they got out of bed this morning and you're picking holes where none are to be picked.
> 
> A deer is the same as a jogger? Really?
> 
> Morons.


 Ok, jog on.


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm going to show myself the door as everybody apparently didn't take their blinkers off when they got out of bed this morning and you're picking holes where none are to be picked.
> 
> A deer is the same as a jogger? Really?
> 
> Morons.


 
wooooooo 

So anyone that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong.

It always amazes me why people like you use a forum. Is it to preach?


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

Graham & 4f - I honestly don't know as i've never been in that position.

If it's small then I guess as a default then to be seen whilst running is not an issue.

I guess if you do wear stuff to be seen then that makes you relatively more considerate? 

There's a guy i come across when commuting in that walks his dogs on a field that has a shared use path. He has put flashing led's on the dog's collars. Great idea. This makes him a considerate person. Does this mean that those dog walkers that don't put LED's on their dogs less considerate? Yes, relatively speaking, but not inconsiderate.


----------



## trsleigh (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm of the opinion that if you go out at night in dark clothing in an unlit area you deserve what happens to you.
> 
> How sodding stupid do you have to be? If you jog regularly then you know the paths you use are either empty or have other traffic on it. If it has nothing on it, then fine. If it has other stuff on it the onus is on you to make yourself visible (like everybody else, might I add). If you don't then you have no right to moan about getting stick for it.
> 
> I see far too many people in black clothes at night and I do wonder when Darwin will catch up with them.


 
The CTC were on the right track in the thiries when they campaigned against rear lights for cyclists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/14/cycling-ethical-living
Quote "At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."

So substitute bicycles for cars and joggers for cyclists and here we are 75 years later arguing that the innocent party should be the one to take action.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (11 Oct 2012)

Can I just remind everyone of the Cyclechat family motto *" A fun and friendly online cycling community"*


----------



## sunnyjim (11 Oct 2012)

Simple answer to this- if the OP want's to cycle much faster than pedestrians, he/she should be on the road.


----------



## sabian92 (11 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> Ok, jog on.


 



dodd82 said:


> wooooooo
> So anyone that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong.
> It always amazes me why people like you use a forum. Is it to preach?


I'm not preaching or saying anybody else is wrong, what I'm saying is you can't compare a tree or a deer to a person. You may as well compare a car to an alarm clock. A deer or a tree can't wear hi-viz clothing. That's just mental, just as suggesting they should buy them. Why not say cats need indicators and dogs need reversing lights?



trsleigh said:


> The CTC were on the right track in the thiries when they campaigned against rear lights for cyclists
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/14/cycling-ethical-living
> Quote "At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
> 
> So substitute bicycles for cars and joggers for cyclists and here we are 75 years later arguing that the innocent party should be the one to take action.


 
A cyclist isn't likely to kill a person. It happens, sure, but far less often than cars killing cyclists.


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Anyone answer this? In particular, 2 runners going in opposite directions.


 If there's enough light to be able to follow a path and not trip over your own feet, theres usually enough to see other runners and sometimes hear them approaching in my experience. I can't imagine anyone actually running in pitch black darkness though, you'd not be able to follow the path and have no confidence to build any speed up.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

MrJamie said:


> If there's enough light to be able to follow a path and not trip over your own feet, theres usually enough to see other runners and sometimes hear them approaching in my experience.* I can't imagine anyone actually running in pitch black darkness though, you'd not be able to follow the path and have no confidence to build any speed up*.


 
I thought that was the situation we were discussing?


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

In a former life I ran, and ran alot at night, and given a few minutes in the darkness, my eyes were able to adjust to the point where even the light from a quarter moon would be enough to run 5 miles along a unlit track along side a quarry. It was a well used track, used by runners, cyclist, as well as dog walkers and couples. I can say that I've never "run into" anyone. Cyclists make more noise than runner, even runners make a pant pant flap flap noise, loud enought that you can spot and avoid them when you're 20 or 30 feet away. Dog walkers or their waterproof jackets tend to make a noise like a crisp packet, and dogs claws on the ground make a click click noise. If you are paying attention you can see dark on dark movement solely becasue it is moving. However you have to be paying attention... and that is the key.


----------



## Graham (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Graham & 4f - I honestly don't know as i've never been in that position.
> 
> If it's small then I guess as a default then to be seen whilst running is not an issue.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, I was being a bit of clever d*(ck - First glance at your post suggested to me they were running in opposite directions _away from eachother. _Hope this guy hasn't got too many dogs - Field full of flashing LEDs would be a bit trippy!


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Can I just remind everyone of the Cyclechat family motto *" A fun and friendly online cycling community"*


 
Spot on, I feel the mods should have dived in here rather sooner, personally, because name calling always makes your argument more convincing. (That wasn't aimed at you, Peter, I totally agree with your post).


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

Graham said:


> Sorry, I was being a bit of clever d*(ck - First glance at your post suggested to me they were running in opposite directions _away from eachother. _Hope this guy hasn't got too many dogs - *Field full of flashing LEDs would be a bit trippy!*


 
It was very odd seeing flashing things moving randomly across an open field. He has 2 dogs. I think it's great!


----------



## snorri (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> in my neck of the woods joggers ARE responsible to wear lighting and reflective material.


Interesting, can you provide a link to this aspect of BC law please?


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm not preaching or saying anybody else is wrong, what I'm saying is you can't compare a tree or a deer to a person. You may as well compare a car to an alarm clock. A deer or a tree can't wear hi-viz clothing. That's just mental, just as suggesting they should buy them. Why not say cats need indicators and dogs need reversing lights?


 
Come on - I think they're just trying to make a point.

No need to call people morons.


----------



## MrJamie (11 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I thought that was the situation we were discussing?


Yeah, my experience is much like tadpole's, if people have enough light to run along the trail they have enough to avoid people if theyre paying attention. I was just suggesting that if it were really that "pitch black" they wouldnt be able to follow the path to run.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

Although a super bright headlamp may be the answer, they are also a problem IMO. I have many a folk ride past me that use such a light and I can say from my experience it's just as dangerous as no light. Perhaps it's the way they are aimed but as they approach me it's like having a searchlight shone in my face and it blinds me , so I end up having to squint and see nothing. Most times I have to pull over and stop until they pass me then get back on my way. Either that or risk riding off an embankment.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> If I'm a cyclist wearing ninja clothing at night and don't have lights and I get hit by a car I can't complain that it's the driver's fault; if a jogger running down an unlit shared cycle path gets hit by a cyclist then (s)he must accept that they should do what they can to be seen. As for the Sheldon not seeing them automatically implying that he's going to fast argument - just when do you think you'd see an unlit jogger in the pitch black? Not until you're darn close is what I'm thinking.


And the thing to also consider is that you are in motion towards the jogger, vices- versa, so they come up on you pretty quickly.


----------



## Maz (11 Oct 2012)

To Whom It May Concern,
I find the title of this thread most offensive and a slur upon my good character. I shall be seeking redress through legal proceedings.
Regards
A.M.Joggers, Esq.


----------



## dodd82 (11 Oct 2012)

To Whom It May Concern,
I find the content of this thread most offensive and a slur upon my good character. I shall be seeking redress through legal proceedings.
Regards
F.Allen-Trees, Esq.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them. What about helmets? What do these people think they are doing just running and walking about? Are they insane?
> 
> Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'
> 
> GET A GRIP PEOPLE; GET A GRIP.


No, I think we are saying that pedestrians must alter there behavior in the dark. Or start using common sense and practice better safety.

I guarantee you these same joggers wouldn't walk alongside a roadway at night without lighting or reflective clothing. Should it be any different on a shared pathway that cyclists use?


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

tadpole said:


> By his own words we know that is not true,
> 
> Riding too fast in bad conditions dispaite know it is an area prone to fog, so both visibility is compromised as is the ability to stop.
> 
> ...


I said I come up on people in a hurry, which mean they just appear. I also said my speed is 15km/h. How much slower do you people want, should I walk my bike? Better yet jog?


----------



## tadpole (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> I guarantee you these same joggers wouldn't walk alongside a roadway at night without lighting or reflective clothing. Should it be any different on a shared pathway that cyclists use?


Misleading argument 
Just because it is unsafe to walk down a dark road with hundreds of cars travelling at speed, does not mean that the same activity i.e. walking is unsafe when walking down a pavement or shared path where there are no cars. 




Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> I said I come up on people in a hurry, which mean they just appear. I also said my speed is 15km/h. How much slower do you people want, should I walk my bike? Better yet jog?


Slow enough to spot danger or a fellow path occupant, or get better lights.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Oct 2012)

Do you feel the same about people walking or is it specifically joggers. I don't put on a high viz if I go out for a walk at night, if I came across a shared path should I avoid it unless I go home and change first?


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

4F said:


> If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.


I can see well enough to avoid a huge pile of horsecrap on the ride yesterday a.m. I can also see runners off in the distance with reflective shoes or clothing quite easily. Dressed in all black is a bit harder.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

snorri said:


> Interesting, can you provide a link to this aspect of BC law please?


You seem to think you're pretty intelligent, Google it.


----------



## gambatte (11 Oct 2012)

So what if there was a bollard installed in the way, a bin fallen over. End of the day, you ride at a speed where you can stop in the space you can see. If pedestrians can be there and they don't have to use lights or reflectives - you know that. Ride appropriately.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> You seem to think you're pretty intelligent, Google it.


 
From the BC Bikesense website that seems to inform most of it's advice from BC law

http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/Bike_Sense-Nov05.pdf



> Riding on multi-use paths
> Except for street crossings, paths are safe from car/bicycle collisions, and you don't have to endure the noise and pollution. However, other users, such as joggers, skaters, children, pets and pedestrians in general, often act unpredictably, and a cyclist maintaining a high speed can be a danger on such a path. Therefore, cyclists who want to travel quickly might opt to use roadways rather than heavily used paths. Remember that you are sharing the path with others. Reduce your speed where appropriate and when passing other path users, ring your bell or call out (e.g. 'passing on your left') to alert them. Helmets are required on multi-use paths and some paths may post speed limits. Respect user regulations for these facilities.


 
Can't see anything about any obligations for pedestrians on shared pathways unless you have a link for law that disagrees with this.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> I can see well enough to avoid a huge pile of horsecrap on the ride yesterday a.m. I can also see runners off in the distance with reflective shoes or clothing quite easily. Dressed in all black is a bit harder.


 
Eat more carrots, get better lights, and slow down. You won't have so many collisions and near misses any more.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Oct 2012)

There are some lovely shared paths next to the canals in North London near where I live, however I have to cycle so slowly to be safe on them that I don't bother as I might as well walk (which I often do).

That doesn't stop other cyclists zooming along inconsiderately like the pedestrians should be getting out of the way to let them past. Always ticks me off as I feel it makes cyclists in general look bad by association.

The way I see it a shared path is a pedestrian area that cyclists are permitted to use considerately, not the other way round.


----------



## Trail Child (11 Oct 2012)

J.Primus said:


> From the BC Bikesense website that seems to inform most of it's advice from BC law
> 
> http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/Bike_Sense-Nov05.pdf
> 
> ...


The same exists here in Ottawa:

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/places-to-visit/parks-paths/courtesy-safety-capital-pathway

Highlight: max speed is 20 km/hr and to yield to pedestrians at all times. Faster cyclists are to use roadways.


----------



## Herbie (11 Oct 2012)

snorri said:


> Yes it's you, you say you try to be a safe rider, but it's not only your own safety you have to think of but that of other path/road users you may meet on your journey. Particular care is required on paths shared by cyclists and people on foot.
> Get yourself a decent front light that will illuminate hazards ahead and adjust your speed to match the weather, light conditions and other traffic.
> You deserved to get an earful from the jogger, her behaviour was understandable in the situation you describe.
> You admit to three instances of near collision with a jogger....how many repeats will it take before you realise you are cycling recklessly?
> ...


 
Here Here....good points well put


----------



## Herbie (11 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> On 'Runners Forum' a lot of joggers wear head torches and flashing armbands. It makes sense to be as visible as possible when your in poor light or fog, it helps to stop you getting knocked down.
> 
> Guess some people think that they have no responsibility for there own safety. I wear one of these, one click gives a single red beam, two clicks gives a double white beam, it's bright and saves me from stepping in poop.


 

This is a cool light...i want one...where do you get them?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I'm of the opinion that if you go out at night in dark clothing in an unlit area you deserve what happens to you.


a good too many drivers are of the opinion, and the judiciary, via sentencing policy, seem to think along the same lines... if you go out on a bicycle on an unlit/lit/NSL/dual carriageway road you deserve what happens to you. Death or serious injury.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (11 Oct 2012)

Just read through this thread from where I left off this morning. Why oh why do people have to resort to insults? I think it's really healthy discussing things like this - seeing things from another's point of view. And there's some fun to be had too! But calling people who don't share your opinion "morons" or whatever is simply not on. Me wonders if such people behave like that on the road too?


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

Jeez, what is it with people who are so fixated about starting an argument too prove what they say has to be right. I am on Sheldons side with this.

For the life of me i can't see how a shared path compares to being in the woods and as for telling the chap that they need more lights If the jogger can not see the lights that are already on the bike what makes you think dressing the bike up like wembly stadium will make any difference.

Some people in life are just numptys like cycle ninjas you have jogger ninjas.


----------



## Oldspice (11 Oct 2012)

Herbie said:


> This is a cool light...i want one...where do you get them?


 
I can't for the life of me remember which shop it was, just that it was an outdoor type shop.
You can purchase them online, the battery life is fab.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Just read through this thread from where I left off this morning. Why oh why do people have to resort to insults? I think it's really healthy discussing things like this - seeing things from another's point of view. And there's some fun to be had too! But calling people who don't share your opinion "morons" or whatever is simply not on. Me wonders if such people behave like that on the road too?


 
^^this^^

Some people cannot accept debate


----------



## al78 (11 Oct 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Just read through this thread from where I left off this morning. Why oh why do people have to resort to insults? I think it's really healthy discussing things like this - seeing things from another's point of view. And there's some fun to be had too! But calling people who don't share your opinion "morons" or whatever is simply not on. Me wonders if such people behave like that on the road too?


 
It appears to me to be to do with the human utopia of freedom without responsibility, and debates like this seem to stem around attempting to get as close as possible to this utopia by advocating maximal responsibility on other people, whilst simultaneously attempting to minimize personal responsibility.

Personally I think you only need one guideline, and that is be thoughtful and considerate to others, and this is independent of the mode of transport (or anything else for that matter). I strongly suspect societies where people are thoughtful and considerate to others (i.e a strong community spirit), as opposed to the increasingly selfish, insular society that the UK is turning into, have a better quality of life overall.


----------



## boydj (11 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> My first thought when I read this is "Are you for real?" Then I realized you must also be a jogger.......
> 
> To make the assumption by reading my post that I must have inadequate lighting or as you say " am riding recklessly" is an unintelligent assumption. Therefore I'll assume, from you're post, that you are rationally challenged and speak before you think.
> 
> ...


 
I think you have to accept things are not going to change and ride accordingly. Moaning about it on a cycling forum will do nothing for your safety, or that of the joggers - though it has polarised opinions on here somewhat!


----------



## Dan B (11 Oct 2012)

redcard said:


> What about a pothole? Always the riders fault if they hit one, right?


I've hit two in my time that were bad enough to need wheel fettling , and yes, both were my fault: once for not paying enough attention, and the other for tailgating the van in front


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (11 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Jeez, what is it with people who are so fixated about starting an argument too prove what they say has to be right. I am on Sheldons side with this.
> 
> For the life of me i can't see how a shared path compares to being in the woods and as for telling the chap that they need more lights If the jogger can not see the lights that are already on the bike what makes you think dressing the bike up like wembly stadium will make any difference.
> 
> Some people in life are just numptys like cycle ninjas you have jogger ninjas.


I appreciate the support Oldspice. Thanks!

I do appreciate everyone's opinions, and I've taken some to heart. Many a good point has been made which I plan on acting upon. I rode a bit slower this AM and raised the lights up a bit for a better ahead view.

However..
What I don't appreciate are the few "%$#@#%" that have to jump down my throat like I'm some sort of criminal. First reply they make and they come off as angry and bitter. Get a life people or get some pills...

As a newb to the forum it's a really welcoming feeling to have some " $%#$" jump down my throat on one of my first threads which I've started. Some folks are die hard cyclists it seems, and to them I say "yeah, good for you". They also say I'm giving cyclists a bad name with my "riding". Yet they treat a fellow cyclist like crap on his first post. Talk about calling the kettle black eh folks. Practice what you preach or shut up.

And as far as B.C. law and cyclists, well my wife practices B.C. law "Department of Justice" so I have a very good understanding of whats what. I made a crap comment to see just how far some people would take it, and to those few that just HAD to search and see what the law was, I say get a life or get out more and ride..you obviously need it. 


To those that posted with some form of respect and dignity, weather positive or negative I say thanks. It's not what you say, but how you say it.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (12 Oct 2012)

boydj said:


> I think you have to accept things are not going to change and ride accordingly. Moaning about it on a cycling forum will do nothing for your safety, or that of the joggers - though it has polarised opinions on here somewhat!


 

Moaning, I thought I made statement then asked for others opinions???????


----------



## J.Primus (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> I appreciate the support Oldspice. Thanks!
> 
> I do appreciate everyone's opinions, and I've taken some to heart. Many a good point has been made which I plan on acting upon. I rode a bit slower this AM and raised the lights up a bit for a better ahead view.
> 
> ...


 
Why are you so angry?

I searched for the law on that comment you made as you stated joggers were breaking the law by wearing dark clothes and then were rude to the person who asked you to back it up with a link. I have a life thanks, it took me about 5 minutes to find that. Also it wasn't a crap comment to test how far people would go was it, you just made something up to back your point and got called on it. Accept it and move on.

If it sounds like you are cycling recklessly then yes you would be giving cyclists a bad name, pointing this out is not the pot calling the kettle black unless you have some alternative meaning of the phrase.

As for you last point I think you should seriously take your own advice on it. In fact on forums it is what you say and it's also how you say it and a lot of your posts have been quite aggressive on both counts. If you want a civil discussion try being civil and don't make things up and then bleat about people not having a life when you get found out.

Safe riding in future and I'm glad you've taken some of the points raised on board re speed and lighting.


----------



## snorri (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> To those that posted with some form of respect and dignity, weather positive or negative I say thanks. It's not what you say, but how you say it.


 I'll take that as a thank you then, but am still mystified at your vitriolic response up thread.


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (12 Oct 2012)

J.Primus said:


> Why are you so angry?
> 
> I searched for the law on that comment you made as you stated joggers were breaking the law by wearing dark clothes and then were rude to the person who asked you to back it up with a link. I have a life thanks, it took me about 5 minutes to find that. Also it wasn't a crap comment to test how far people would go was it, you just made something up to back your point and got called on it. Accept it and move on.
> 
> ...


 
Angry, not at all. Called on it, OK then!

I'm simply amazed at the smarts it takes to take my post then twist it around to suit your needs.
BRAVO!


----------



## Mugshot (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> And as far as B.C. law and cyclists, well my wife practices B.C. law "Department of Justice" so I have a very good understanding of whats what. I made a crap comment to see just how far some people would take it, and to those few that just HAD to search and see what the law was, I say get a life or get out more and ride..you obviously need it.


----------



## J.Primus (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> Angry, not at all. Called on it, OK then!
> 
> I'm simply amazed at the smarts it takes to take my post then twist it around to suit your needs.
> BRAVO!



What are my "needs" in pointing out that your posts are very aggressive and you've been rude to people? Also I didn't exactly need to twist that screed to make the point. But I'm sure it's everyone else, just carry on with your existing posting style and I'm sure you'll never fall out with anyone on a forum again. 

I see you've followed up your accusation of me having no life with an insinuation about my intelligence. 

Way to stay classy fella.


----------



## byegad (12 Oct 2012)

Lets put it another way.

'I was driving my car which has poor lights on a dark foggy morning down a country road and hit a stupid pedestrian who had no Hi-Viz and no reflectives. He deserved to die!'

On my side now??????


----------



## sabian92 (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> a good too many drivers are of the opinion, and the judiciary, via sentencing policy, seem to think along the same lines... if you go out on a bicycle on an unlit/lit/NSL/dual carriageway road you deserve what happens to you. Death or serious injury.


 
Cyclists are required to have lights so if you're ninja-ing about, then you're an idiot as well. We berate ninja cyclists for the same thing as we're saying joggers don't need to do - why? Roads are generally well lit at night unless you're out in the country. If you run in pitch darkness with black clothes then that's completely different - and daft.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Cyclists are required to have lights so if you're ninja-ing about, then you're an idiot as well.


 Are you addressing me here? If so wind your neck in, the lights on my bike melt tarmac.



> We berate ninja cyclists for the same thing as we're saying joggers don't need to do - why? Roads are generally well lit at night unless you're out in the country. If you run in pitch darkness with black clothes then that's completely different - and daft.


I don't berate ninja cyclists so less of the we. You are free to do so.

As a driver I've encountered hundreds ninja cyclists over the years, yet I've never hit one. Why might that be?

Things as a driver/and cyclist I've encountered in the pitch dark on country lanes
Pedestrians in black
Joggers in black
Badgers
Deer
A mattress
More deer
A fridge
About 30 drain pipes
A bag of cement
Straw bales
Stray sheep (lots)
Stray goats
Stray cows
Cars with no lights
Motorbike with no lights
Cyclists with no lights
Fallen trees
Branches and other debris
etc.,
etc..

Managed to avoid them all, no collisions, no damage to me or them. Why might that be?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Oct 2012)

This thread is still going on?

I think because there are some runners on here like myself took offence from the start due to the "develop a dislike for A.M. joggers" title.

Then the smart arse's come along with their comments, then the OP takes offence then it quickly goes down hill.

Just though id summerise the events......


----------



## Oldspice (12 Oct 2012)

It's tragic that posters can't comprehend what the OP is saying and that there so blinkered by there own ego. Oh well! that's the Internet for you


----------



## J.Primus (12 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> It's tragic that posters can't comprehend what the OP is saying and that there so blinkered by there own ego. Oh well! that's the Internet for you


 
Alternatively we comprehend exactly what he is trying to say but disagree with him. Don't really see where egos come into it.


----------



## sabian92 (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Are you addressing me here? If so wind your neck in, the lights on my bike melt tarmac.
> I don't berate ninja cyclists so less of the we. You are free to do so.
> As a driver I've encountered hundreds ninja cyclists over the years, yet I've never hit one. Why might that be?
> Things as a driver/and cyclist I've encountered in the pitch dark on country lanes
> ...


 
No, not at all, it was a statement aimed in general.

The different between a jogger who is basically invisible and most of those objects is that they're just things - not living beings.

I berate ninjas because it gives those who adhere to the law a bad name, just as RLJers do and pavement hoggers do.


----------



## tadpole (12 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> It's tragic that posters can't comprehend what the OP is saying and that there so blinkered by there own ego. Oh well! that's the Internet for you


We more than comprehend; it's just that I feel that the OP is at fault due to bad cycling practice/bad attitude... so no ego is involved. 
He came one here looking for Bro-support, when he didn’t get it so started using Bro-law and Bro-arguments, bro-logic. When that didn’t work he then started, along with others, to insult people. Still no ego involved. As for blinkered; it doesn’t apply. Just because your arguments do not sway people to your side of the argument, it doesn’t mean they are blinkered, it just means your arguments are not persuasive enough, or people can see that they are plainly wrong. 
OP Now is the time to examine your motives and look to your riding habits and apply the views of the majority to real life events and I’m sure you’ll see that maybe your riding style may sometimes be the cause of a large proportion of the conflicts you suffer on the “shared Path”


----------



## redcard (12 Oct 2012)

byegad said:


> Lets put it another way.
> 
> 'I was driving my car which has poor lights on a dark foggy morning down a country road and hit a stupid pedestrian who had no Hi-Viz and no reflectives. He deserved to die!'
> 
> On my side now??????



It's bizarre you equate manslaughter with hurting someone's little toe.

It's a political argument rather than one of common-sense. 

Start blaming the pedestrian, then we lose the moral high ground when bollocking the motorist.

Its the same with hi-viz and the helmet debates. If we admit they're useful then we're admitting cycling is a dangerous activity.


----------



## byegad (12 Oct 2012)

redcard said:


> It's bizarre you equate manslaughter with hurting someone's little toe.
> 
> It's a political argument rather than one of common-sense.
> 
> ...


 
Irony mode was engaged when I wrote that. You do realise this?


----------



## redcard (12 Oct 2012)

byegad said:


> Irony mode was engaged when I wrote that. You do realise this?



It was a bad analogy rather than irony.


----------



## fossyant (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> And as far as B.C. law and cyclists, well my wife practices B.C. law "Department of Justice" so I have a very good understanding of whats what. I made a crap comment to see just how far some people would take it, and to those few that just HAD to search and see what the law was, I say get a life or get out more and ride..you obviously need it.
> 
> 
> To those that posted with some form of respect and dignity, weather positive or negative I say thanks. It's not what you say, but how you say it.



Well well, well. Pot kettle black eh. 

Behave on this thread all of you, otherwise it will get locked. Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (12 Oct 2012)

Someone Close this bloody thread!


----------



## J.Primus (12 Oct 2012)

fossyant said:


> Well well, well. Pot kettle black eh.
> 
> Behave on this thread all of you, otherwise it will get locked. Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.


What's CAD if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

J.Primus said:


> What's CAD if you don't mind my asking?


 
A sub forum in community.

Current Affairs and Debates.


----------



## 4F (12 Oct 2012)

fossyant said:


> Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.


 
How very dare you  Commuting is much worse


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Someone Close this bloody thread!


 
If reading this upsets you, then you don't have to read it.

Apart from one or two petty insults, there is 'reasonable' debate from both sides.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> No, not at all, it was a statement aimed in general.


Cool. My bads.



> The different between a jogger who is basically invisible and most of those objects is that they're just things - not living beings.


 OK. So focus on the living beings. How come I've never hit or killed any of them?



> I berate ninjas because it gives those who adhere to the law a bad name, just as RLJers do and pavement hoggers do.


I used to think along those lines. I now reject the idea that ninja's rlj-ers and pavement bunnies give me a bad name. It's illogical. They are not me. I am not them. To suggest a common bond, and from it, guilt-by-association, because we use the same mode of transport I feel is foolish. I drive a car. I walk about a lot. I jog/run (and at night I wear reflectives) I ride a bike. So what am I?


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I drive a car. I walk about a lot. *I jog/run (and at night I wear reflectives)* I ride a bike. So what am I?


 
A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.


I wouldn't wear them if I was running somewhere away from motor traffic or on a shared use path though. I don't wear them at night to walk exactly the same streets that I run on.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.


 
This is the answer.

The end.


----------



## green1 (12 Oct 2012)

sabian92 said:


> No, not at all, it was a statement aimed in general.
> 
> The different between a jogger who is basically invisible and most of those objects is that they're just things - not living beings.


 They may just be objects but they will still give you a world of hurt when you ride in to them because your going too fast/have insufficent lighting for the situation.


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wouldn't wear them if I was running somewhere away from motor traffic or on a shared use path though. I don't wear them at night to walk exactly the same streets that I run on.


 
Ah, not _so_ sensible, then!


----------



## Graham (12 Oct 2012)

I wonder if AM Jogger has put her foot in a pothole and broken her ankle yet. Would that end this debate? If she is lying down unable to move, is she then F.Allen Tree? Discuss........................


----------



## Curb (12 Oct 2012)

(reminds me of the helmet debates - that we'd have on the commuting forum - so 'good' they got their own sub-forum)


----------



## Sheldon Bourgeois (12 Oct 2012)

fossyant said:


> Well well, well. Pot kettle black eh.
> 
> Behave on this thread all of you, otherwise it will get locked. Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.


 
I start a thread. Maybe I should have titled it differently, but since I made a comment in it about joggers being unlit or not wearing reflective clothing I assumed people would comprehend the fact that I meant UNLIT joggers. To those who don't get it, I apologize.

Second reply to the thread is by snorri, who proceeds to basically jump down my throat, tell me this and that about me, on a personal level, based on a post I made????? I guess when your an "uber" member you powers of perception are 10 times that of the average Canadian, correct??? Next when I proceed to reply to him in the same manner in which he addressed me, I get labeled as "angry"?????

Also in my posts I did not curse or use threatening comments, I say it as I see it. If this offended some people then to them I am sorry. I have also made a mental note of these people and any replies I make towards them in further threads I will "child down" my replies to suit them. 

I"ll assume your a moderator. To that I'll simply say instead of threatening to close this tread, why don't you simply do your job and address those few that can't reply to a poster with a shred of respect and decency. And when a poster gives back the same attitude in which they are receiving from another poster, either let it be OR discipline the BOTH posters involved. This way your not committing the dreaded "double standard". Seems fair, no????

Thank you.


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> A sub forum in community.
> 
> Current Affairs and Debates P&L lite.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (12 Oct 2012)

I didn't know joggers had to be fitted with lights,by law,my bad.

That means deal with it and cycle appropriately.


----------



## boydj (12 Oct 2012)

Sheldon Bourgeois said:


> Moaning, I thought I made statement then asked for others opinions???????


Well, you did come on to a cycling forum looking for confirmation of your views on joggers and did not seem too happy with some of the contrary opinions.

If you are serious about trying to change things, then a better approach might have been to go on a local joggers / runners forum to explain the problem in a reasonable way and maybe provide them with some food for thought.

I don't necessarily disagree that runners should take some responsibility for making themselves visible. However, as an active club runner for many years, my view is that if there is enough light for me to see by, then I don't need lights - though I may wear some bright clothing with reflective areas. I would expect that faster-moving people would be appropriately lit for the speed they are moving at.


----------



## fossyant (12 Oct 2012)

To the Originator, yes I am a mod, and we take a light touch as possible, but this is an Internet forum, people are allowed to say what they want within reason. It is also a family forum. When folk openly say they post items that is intended to cause issues, then we take a view, and if you can't take a polite, 'give it a rest' then that is your issue.

As many folk have said, riding on a shared path means take extra care when conditions are poor. Local laws or not, a person walking or running doesn't need illumination.

You have a simple solution, get better lights and/or slow down on routes like this. 

Please bear in mind this is a forum, so folk will say things harsher than they would do face to face. The folks here are actually very tolerant compared to most forums, and tho mods try to keep the boards family friendly, and of course free from direct insults. Not everyone will have the same view as you do. 

Personally shared paths are game off for me, I want to ride fast, it's the road/highway. I show care and courtesy to pedestrians, even on the road.


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

P&L is _so_ last year, FF. It's been updated as per my post.


----------



## fossyant (12 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> P&L is _so_ last year, FF. It's been updated as per my post.


Nice one....


----------



## JoeyB (12 Oct 2012)

Back on topic...

I went for a cheeky 10k run tonight and as its my first night run I wore my new Aldi hi vis rain coat for the first time. I reckon I must have seen at least two others wearing the same jacket lol. I did over take one guy who was dressed completely in black...I did think to myself that was rather stupid.

I was passed by a few cyclists, they were so silent they kept making me jump!


----------



## fossyant (12 Oct 2012)

Back on topic too.

I am 99.999 percent a road cyclist, mostly commuting. I am fortunately not in areas that are too high in pedestrian crossing traffic. They don't wear high viz either.. This week returning from the big northern smoke(Manchester) I was bowling along outside the cycle lane thing, oh and a blasted pedestrian appeared. They stepped out, others were on the pavement, I used all three brakes ( fixed wheel) and I only sweared to myself trying to stop the bike before I flattened this five foot lady that did not look.

Stuff happens, expect folk to jump out into the road, but if you can't see a pedestrian approaching, then there is an issue.

I haven't been on here complaining that pedestrians don't look before they cross the road, that's life. Be prepared.


----------



## JoeyB (12 Oct 2012)

Yup, always expect the worst and think for others too...that's what they tell motorcyclists isn't it?

Technically I'm a runner more than a cyclist at the moment (33miles in the last month)... So I like to think I'm sympathetic towards cyclists whom I share lanes with. I always hug the verges to leave as much room as possible (at the risk of turning an ankle in a ditch!)


----------



## gambatte (13 Oct 2012)

Very low month for me September, with only 50, but I was nursing an injury. Cos of that, 50% of those miles were racing. Majority of my training miles are in the evening, on lit pavements. Quite often thats all in black. You wouldn't demand pedestrians wear high viz and lights all the time? Thats all I am, a faster paced pedestrian.


----------



## The Jogger (13 Oct 2012)

There are as many cyclists out there as dim as joggers, in the lighting dept I mean of course.


----------



## Herbie (15 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> I can't for the life of me remember which shop it was, just that it was an outdoor type shop.
> You can purchase them online, the battery life is fab.


 
Thanks...i'll try shops like Cotswolds and the like


----------



## Dayvo (15 Oct 2012)

Common sense tells us that we should make ourselves as safe and as visible as possible, and in all conditions.

Yes, of course cyclists should be on the look out for pedestrians/joggers, but they are also responsible for their own safety.

Since I first came to Norway (and most certainly long before) pedestrians have always worn plastic reflectors hanging from their jackets or bags etc. to aid visibility.






The Norwegian equivalent of the RAC/AA offers this advice: http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...a=X&ei=jOV7UMrzKuan4gSBkoDADw&ved=0CD0Q7gEwAw

Why be an unnecessary candidate for a Darwin award?


----------



## Markymark (15 Oct 2012)

I drove (car) back once at night in heavy snow. I don'y think pedestriansdcould easily tell what was road and what was pavement. Peds didn't have lights. I drove back at 5 mph as I matched my speed to the conditions irrespective of whether people should have been better dressed etc.


----------

