# Ignorant of highway code and lights on bikes law



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Ok this happened last night. 
Last night i went out in my car to various places and then onto the local supermarket. It was a wet night and dark as it was around 9.15pm. The first thing that bugged me was seeing someone driving a car without even its sidelights on. A black car at that which made it even harder to see. I said to myself something like "bloody idiot(as i flashed him/her and didn't get a response),next i'll be seeing some tit on a bike without lights or reflectors". Then low and behold about 10 minutes later i came across him! There i was going round the mini roundabout which leads onto the supermarket car park when i spotted this idiot hurtling down the road towards me. As you'll know i had the right of way. I indicated going round the roundabout(even though i'd say about 50-60% don't),to let this person on a bike know that i would be turning right so he'd better stop to give way. Did he stop? No he didn't! As i was heading for the 3 o clock turn off he cycled right across my path,causing me to brake and sound my horn. I was met with shouts of abuse. I let it go and drove onto the shop car park to see that this idiot on a bike had decided to follow me. I suspected a confrontation and i was right. He approached me as i got out of my car and asked abruptly why i didn't give way to him. I explained that i had the right of way and he made it hard for me to see him as he didn't have lights on his bike. He then ranted that he had to swerve to avoid me(still didn't get it that he was supposed to stop as i went round the roundabout) and this is the best one...he didn't need lights by law as his bike had reflectors fitted. But wait,it gets even better/worse! A bloke then came over saying he'd seen what happened. I expected him to back me up but no. He said that the cyclist was in the right as wait for this..."Cyclists under 18 can ride without lights if they have reflectors fitted"(this person on a bike was about 15/16 i'd say). Only under 18 mind you. As soon as they reach 18 they have to have lights on their bikes,according to him who witnessed this. So off went the one on a bike,with his actions exonerated by this person who i thought had come over to back me up,but took the side of the idiot without lights on his bike. Thanks for reading this. Posting about it helps get it off my chest!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

The rules in the Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


----------



## gavroche (2 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The rules in the Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


I disagree. When you are going round the roundabout, as Accy was doing, you have right of way over anyone waiting to get on the roundabout.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The rules in the Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


So bloody annoying though. Imagine thinking that those cheap reflectors that have to be fitted by law are all they need.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Last night i went out in my car to various places and then onto the local supermarket. It was a wet night and dark as it was around 9.15pm. The first thing that bugged me was seeing someone driving a car without even its sidelights on. A black car at that which made it even harder to see. I said to myself something like "bloody idiot(as i flashed him/her and didn't get a response),next i'll be seeing some tit on a bike without lights or reflectors". Then low and behold about 10 minutes later i came across him! There i was going round the mini roundabout which leads onto the supermarket car park when i spotted this idiot hurtling down the road towards me. As you'll know i had the right of way. I indicated going round the roundabout(even though i'd say about 50-60% don't),to let this person on a bike know that i would be turning right so he'd better stop to give way. Did he stop? No he didn't! As i was heading for the 3 o clock turn off he cycled right across my path,causing me to brake and sound my horn. I was met with shouts of abuse. I let it go and drove onto the shop car park to see that this idiot on a bike had decided to follow me. I suspected a confrontation and i was right. He approached me as i got out of my car and asked abruptly why i didn't give way to him. I explained that i had the right of way and he made it hard for me to see him as he didn't have lights on his bike. He then ranted that he had to swerve to avoid me(still didn't get it that he was supposed to stop as i went round the roundabout) and this is the best one...he didn't need lights by law as his bike had reflectors fitted. But wait,it gets even better/worse! A bloke then came over saying he'd seen what happened. I expected him to back me up but no. He said that the cyclist was in the right as wait for this..."Cyclists under 18 can ride without lights if they have reflectors fitted"(this person on a bike was about 15/16 i'd say). Only under 18 mind you. As soon as they reach 18 they have to have lights on their bikes,according to him who witnessed this. So off went the one on a bike,with his actions exonerated by this person who i thought had come over to back me up,but took the side of the idiot without lights on his bike. Thanks for reading this. Posting about it helps get it off my chest!


Have you written an essay on a motoring forum about the guy in the black car that didn't have lights on?
BTW, what time was this?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

gavroche said:


> I disagree. When you are going round the roundabout, as Accy was doing, you have right of way over anyone waiting to get on the roundabout.



You are free to disagree, but I wasn't expressing my opinion, that was a direct quote from the Highway Code.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

gavroche said:


> I disagree. When you are going round the roundabout, as Accy was doing, you have right of way over anyone waiting to get on the roundabout.


Well that's what i thought. This is a particularly bad roundabout as when yo pull off it your vision is restricted by high privets. As the one on a bike was hurtling down he could easily have been hit by or hit a car. I'm putting his couldn't care less and nothing can harm me attitude down to his youth.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

The witness did say after this incident something like "There aren't any coppers about to patrol the roads". Well from my experience i've seen police officers in their cars, drive past non lit cyclists like they weren't there.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> The witness did say after this incident something like "There aren't any coppers about to patrol the roads". Well from my experience i've seen police officers in their cars, drive past non lit cyclists like they weren't there.


Maybe they didn't see them.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> So bloody annoying though. Imagine thinking that those cheap reflectors that have to be fitted by law are all they need.




The regulations have been covered on here many times before but in case you've missed it, here is a good summary of the rules. It is a bit long and has a few twists and turns but is well worth reading:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> The witness did say after this incident something like "There aren't any coppers about to patrol the roads". Well from my experience i've seen police officers in their cars, drive past non lit cyclists like they weren't there.



Maybe in the grand scheme of priorities they are aware that there are more pressing things for them to deal with.


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2018)

There is no such thing as "right of way". There is only priority, and that is a courtesy you give to others, you never blithely just take it for yourself.

What car did you get in the end Accy?


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

If we're talking strictly about the law, sunset yesterday was 2130 up here so I reckon he had about fifteen minutes before he had to light up.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Jun 2018)

winjim said:


> If we're talking strictly about the law, sunset yesterday was 2130 up here so I reckon he had about fifteen minutes before he had to light up.


That'll teach me to read an OP properly rather than ask a question that's already been answered.


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

Mugshot said:


> That'll teach me to read an OP properly rather than ask a question that's already been answered.


That'll teach me to reply to a thread without quoting the person who'd asked a question and so might have found my post interesting or useful.


----------



## Nyooome-nore (2 Jun 2018)

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations 

Pedal reflectors... whoopsie


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264558, member: 45"]Some road users are idiots. Let it go, and don't choose to let their behaviour cause you to join their club.[/QUOTE]
Some road users are even children.


----------



## Illaveago (2 Jun 2018)

What does the Highway Code say about horses ? Just wondering .


----------



## User269 (2 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> There is no such thing as "right of way".



If there's no such thing as "right of way", how or why then does one "give way", and having done so is it to someone who has "right of way", which you say doesn't exist?

I appreciate the point you're making is that "right of way" doesn't entitle us to deliberately plough into other road users or expect to sail through assorted junctions without due care or consideration, but it does incline us to expect that others might possibly obey road markings, which is both a legal requirement and common sense, not a just a courtesy.





172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You *MUST* give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
_Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25_


----------



## gavroche (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264593, member: 45"]It takes away the blame culture, by saying that we shouldn't expect others to stop and makes us focus on our own actions. Too many road users bang on about what everyone else should be doing when they only have control over your own actions.

If a young teenager doesn't give way to you on a roundabout then so what? Carry on as if he should give way and you might find yourself responsible killing him.[/QUOTE]
Rules and regulations are there for a reason but common sense should still prevail. Anybody in its right mind wouldn't just insist on having a right of way at any cost. If an idiot decide not to give you right of way and jumps in front of you, of course you let him through then and swear to yourself about his irresponsible action.


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2018)

User269 said:


> If there's no such thing as "right of way", how or why then does one "give way", and having done so is it to someone who has "right of way", which you say doesn't exist?
> 
> I appreciate the point you're making is that "right of way" doesn't entitle us to deliberately plough into other road users or expect to sail through assorted junctions without due care or consideration, but it does incline us to expect that others might possibly obey road markings, which is both a legal requirement and common sense, not a just a courtesy.
> 
> ...



As aforementioned already by my good self, the phenomena is "priority", not "right of way". The latter is what the great uneducated public regard as an entitlement and then moan after the crash when it doesn't appear. The former is the correct commodity, and is something one grants to other road users, not something they take for themselves. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

There is simply no such thing as right of way in either legislation of officially sanctioned code of practice. It's something Daily Mail readers invented to justify why they crashed into someone else.


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> As aforementioned already by my good self, the phenomena is "priority", not "right of way". The latter is what the great uneducated public regard as an entitlement and then moan after the crash when it doesn't appear. The former is the correct commodity, and is something one grants to other road users, not something they take for themselves. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
> 
> There is simply no such thing as right of way in either legislation of officially sanctioned code of practice. It's something Daily Mail readers invented to justify why they crashed into someone else.


Right of way does exist as a concept in the Highway Code:



glasgowcyclist said:


> The rules in the Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jun 2018)

I'm not sure where to start with the OP, I'll satisfy myself with a simple comment: you were in the wrong.


----------



## midlife (2 Jun 2018)

From my copy of the highway code..... My bold

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. *The rules 
in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance*, but they advise you 
when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


----------



## TVC (2 Jun 2018)

I remember seeing a thread a few days ago when a cyclist pulled in front of a car, even though the car driver had 'right of way'. I suppose blame is always down to your own point of view.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/w...nfo-films-to-discourage-shoot-driving.234353/


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> I'm not sure where to start with the OP, I'll satisfy myself with a simple comment: you were in the wrong.


Wrong for what reason?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Wrong for what reason?


Really?


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Really?


Am i supposed to know and you're amazed that i don't,judging by your reply to my question?

That was a friendly question and not a jump down your throat one by the way.


----------



## gbb (2 Jun 2018)

Am I the only one who feels they're getting too old to take on the world. 
I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders at stuff nowadays than ever before. I have an opinion on 'right if way...or priority etc.....but can't even be bothered to argue the toss,
My view echoes Dragos. 
If errant drivers drive like Ferkin idiots...you won' change them in the short term, experience...usually a poor one is one of the only things that will change them, when they inevitably (hopefully) come to grief.
Drive /ride on....tut, shake your head...and forget about it.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

winjim said:


> Some road users are even children.


Little bits of incidents come back to me. I now remember him saying "You made me swerve you @##! You should learn to drive properly". This coming from a 16 or 17 year old to someone who's held a clean license for nearly 39 years,apart from 3 points for a cracked headlight and has only been stopped by the police once and that was for doing 38 in a 40 zone when i was 21. Is someone a child at 16 or 17?


----------



## Mugshot (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Is someone a child at 16 or 17?


Some people seem to manage it well into their 50s or even older.


----------



## Spinney (2 Jun 2018)

A rhyme from the world of sailing, but it seems as pertinent here:


> Here lies the body of Michael O'Day.
> He died defending his right of way.
> He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
> But just as dead as if he'd been wrong.


----------



## mickle (2 Jun 2018)

Right of Way is if you're allowed to traipse across a field.

Priority is who gets to go first on the road.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

midlife said:


> From my copy of the highway code..... My bold
> 
> This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. *The rules
> in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance*, but they advise you
> when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.



Wayheyyy, my first TMN in ages, thanks!


----------



## mickle (2 Jun 2018)

At 23:30 last night I overtook a cyclist who was riding northwards on the A1(M) with no lights or reflectors. Thankfully he wasn't riding in primary.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264556, member: 45"]Funny that.[/QUOTE]

I did mean to thank you. Seeing it in your sig ages ago has stuck it in my head forever.
It's amazing how often I find myself using it.


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Little bits of incidents come back to me. I now remember him saying "You made me swerve you @##! You should learn to drive properly". This coming from a 16 or 17 year old to someone who's held a clean license for nearly 39 years,apart from 3 points for a cracked headlight and has only been stopped by the police once and that was for doing 38 in a 40 zone when i was 21. Is someone a child at 16 or 17?


Yes they are a child, although one can hold a driving licence at 17 so that's possibly a grey area when it comes to roadcraft. But part of driving properly is mitigating other people's mistakes and not getting wound up.

Children and especially adolescents are ignorant dickheads. It's a natural part of growing up which adults should be capable of allowing for.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264711, member: 45"]You said it was dark and he was 15 or 16. When it was pointed out that he was a child you've changed your story.

It's also been pointed out that you're complaining about a car and a bike with no lights on, before sunset and lighting up time.[/QUOTE]
15,16,17 does it matter. He was old enough to give lip so don't think he was some kiddywink or something. Also,regardless of the time it was almost dark due to heavy rain clouds overhead. Drivers are expected to light up no matter what the time of day if the weather and light conditions are bad. Not only was the one on a bike without lights he was also riding dangerously ,regardless of whether he had lights on or not!


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

winjim said:


> Children and especially adolescents are ignorant dickheads. It's a natural part of growing up which adults should be capable of allowing for.


Ok,fair point.


----------



## Mr Celine (2 Jun 2018)

Was your roundabout actually a give way (marked by a double dashed line and a give way triangle)? Very few are.

Why did you sound your horn?


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2018)

Which direction was the cyclist approaching from?


----------



## FishFright (2 Jun 2018)

User said:


> maybe nobody was there, maybe it wasn't dark, maybe a 16 year old didn't follow a grown man, maybe it wasn't even raining, maybe none of this even happened. there are a lot of maybe's, who knows.



Reg only comes on Accy's thread for ... for. ... erm erm I've no idea really but it's never to engage , spurned lover ?


----------



## oldwheels (2 Jun 2018)

The general rule to give way to traffic on your right at roundabouts seems to work mostly in practice. In the days of CB radio I used to drive a lot in “polo mint city” aka East Kilbride. Since then I think Aberdeen and Dundee have more roundabouts but the principle still seems to work.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

winjim said:


> Which direction was the cyclist approaching from?


If the roundabout was a clock,he'd have been coming from 12 o clock and i'd be approaching from 6 o clock to turn off at 3 o clock.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264806, member: 45"]<genuine question> Are cyclists expected to carry lights during the day in case it becomes overcast before dark?[/QUOTE]

No but i'd say it would be wise of them to cycle carefully in dark wet conditions. Not hurtle down a road at a roundabout where anything could happen. This twonk on a bike wasn't going to stop for anything.


----------



## TVC (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> No but i'd say it would be wise of them to cycle carefully in dark wet conditions. Not hurtle down a road at a roundabout where anything could happen. This twonk on a bike wasn't going to stop for anything.


So why did you proceed then? and if you saw him before he arrived at the junction then whether he had lights or not is irrelevant to the outcome.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

TVC said:


> So why did you proceed then? and if you saw him before he arrived at the junction then whether he had lights or not is irrelevant to the outcome.


I went round the roundabout slowly,precautiously like i always do. I thought by driving slowly with my headlights on he would've seen me. He obviously did but didn't bother to stop. Are you suggesting that i should stop for every road user who looks like he/she might be about to do something reckless


----------



## TVC (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I went round the roundabout slowly,precautiously like i always do. I thought by driving slowly with my headlights on he would've seen me. He obviously did but didn't bother to stop. Are you suggesting that i should stop for every road user who looks like he/she might be about to do something reckless


Yes. With special attention to the most vunerable road users.


----------



## User10119 (2 Jun 2018)

After all, sometimes those vulnerable road users will misjudge your intentions and take a chance, won't they?


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5264878, member: 45"]Yes. Absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Then we'd be stop start,stop start all the way!


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I went round the roundabout slowly,precautiously like i always do. I thought by driving slowly with my headlights on he would've seen me. He obviously did but didn't bother to stop. *Are you suggesting that i should stop for every road user who looks like he/she might be about to do something reckless*



If they "Look like they are about to do something reckless" you'd be an idiot not to.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Are you suggesting that i should stop for every road user who looks like he/she might be about to do something reckless



If you encountered the same roundabout scenario again, what, if anything, would you do differently?


----------



## gavroche (2 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I went round the roundabout slowly,precautiously like i always do. I thought by driving slowly with my headlights on he would've seen me. He obviously did but didn't bother to stop. Are you suggesting that i should stop for every road user who looks like he/she might be about to do something reckless


Because you were going slowly, maybe he misjudged your speed and thought he had time to proceed?


----------



## flake99please (2 Jun 2018)

User said:


> We need someone with a magic deciding coin...



Or perhaps.....


----------



## Ticktockmy (3 Jun 2018)

Not being a lawyer as some seem to be on this thread, as I read the situation. Whilst the OP was driving well as in law with due care and consideration for other road users. The fact he had seen the cyclist riding towards him without lights, means in my mind he had a duty of care to insure that he did not continue in a fashion which would have further endangered the cyclist. However, if because the cyclist did have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he could have a good argument for running him down.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jun 2018)

Ticktockmy said:


> However, if because the cyclist did have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he could have a good argument for running him down.


There's no such thing as a 'good argument' for running someone down - there are only mitigating factors.


----------



## potsy (3 Jun 2018)

theclaud said:


> There's no such thing as a 'good argument' for running someone down - there are only mitigating factors.


What if @User was the cyclist?


----------



## theclaud (3 Jun 2018)

potsy said:


> What if @User was the cyclist?


HBF


----------



## theclaud (3 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5265398, member: 45"]I wasn't sure what that meant, so I Google it. I'm hoping you didn't mean the acronym that I found.[/QUOTE]
Harsh But Fair. Obvs.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Jun 2018)

theclaud said:


> Harsh But Fair. Obvs.


I guessed, He'd Be Fine.


----------



## Inertia (3 Jun 2018)

User said:


> *Adds some names to The List*


Id recommend a spreadsheet for working with a large list,


----------



## Ticktockmy (4 Jun 2018)

Ticktockmy said:


> Not being a lawyer as some seem to be on this thread, as I read the situation. Whilst the OP was driving well as in law with due care and consideration for other road users. The fact he had seen the cyclist riding towards him without lights, means in my mind he had a duty of care to insure that he did not continue in a fashion which would have further endangered the cyclist. However, if because the cyclist did have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he could have a good argument for running him down.



Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.


----------



## User10119 (4 Jun 2018)

Ticktockmy said:


> Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.


Lights or no...


theclaud said:


> There's no such thing as a 'good argument' for running someone down - there are only mitigating factors.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2018)

Ticktockmy said:


> Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.


It's not a terribly good argument either way, even less so if it was broad daylight. We know the op saw the cyclist, we know it was prior to lighting up time, so the discussion about lights is a distraction really.

There is an discussion to be had about priority. It sounds to me like the op had priority and decided to exercise it, the cyclist may have thought he had priority and decided to exercise it, both had to take evasive action. So from the op's point of view I think it comes down to whether he reasonably thought the cyclist was going to stop and give way at the roundabout...


----------



## MiK1138 (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> No but i'd say it would be wise of them to cycle carefully in dark wet conditions. Not hurtle down a road at a roundabout where anything could happen. This twonk on a bike wasn't going to stop for anything.


So if you knew that why didn't you react accordingly. you can't be responsible for eejits but you can be responsible for your reaction to them


----------



## MiK1138 (4 Jun 2018)

winjim said:


> It's not a terribly good argument either way, even less so if it was broad daylight. We know the op saw the cyclist, we know it was prior to lighting up time, so the discussion about lights is a distraction really.
> 
> There is an discussion to be had about priority. It sounds to me like the op had priority and decided to exercise it, the cyclist may have thought he had priority and decided to exercise it, both had to take evasive action. So from the op's point of view I think it comes down to whether he reasonably thought the cyclist was going to stop and give way at the roundabout...


Going by post #63 the OP presumed the cyclist was not for stopping but proceeded to make his maneuver anyway.


----------



## Phaeton (4 Jun 2018)

@Accy cyclist are you allowed to drive at night (at all) I thought there was some doubt a while ago about your sight being marginal? But you do lead an exciting life, you have more incidents in a week than I have in years,


----------



## mustang1 (4 Jun 2018)

gavroche said:


> I disagree. When you are going round the roundabout, as Accy was doing, you have right of way over anyone waiting to get on the roundabout.


Yes, I agree with this. That's why they have the broken give way lines to the entrance of the roundabout. The way acct describes it, he was correct. 

The no lights thing is a different matter (and I also don't agree with what the 2nd guy said about about age Vs lights).


----------



## mustang1 (4 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The regulations have been covered on here many times before but in case you've missed it, here is a good summary of the rules. It is a bit long and has a few twists and turns but is well worth reading:
> https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations


Whoa I did not know that. Thanks for posting this .


----------



## mustang1 (4 Jun 2018)

Illaveago said:


> What does the Highway Code say about horses ? Just wondering .


... Particularly regarding what/when/where they do their business after a hearty lunch (and do they need the hazard flashers on while doing it) .


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If you encountered the same roundabout scenario again, what, if anything, would you do differently?



Probably pretend i hadn't seen him and run him over this time.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> I'm not sure where to start with the OP, I'll satisfy myself with a simple comment: you were in the wrong.


You didn't reply. I'm still wondering why you thought i was in the wrong.


----------



## Phaeton (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> You didn't reply.


Neither did you with regards to your multiple trips to the opticians & if I remember correctly your concerns over you rvision


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Probably pretend i hadn't seen him and run him over this time.



And you wonder why you get so much stick.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> And you wonder why you get so much stick.


What do you think the  indicates? Yes,i was being sarcastic in my reply.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Neither did you with regards to your multiple trips to the opticians & if I remember correctly your concerns over you rvision


Give it a rest! This thread is about what i've described in my opening post. It's not about my eyesight etc. I'm perfectly entitled to drive,the opthamologist said so the last time i had an appointment with him. Anyway,as i said,this thread is not about my eyesight,so let's keep it that way please.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> What do you think the  indicates? Yes,i was being sarcastic in my reply.



Yes, I suspected you were - that was my point.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266651, member: 45"]For the interests of road safety, and I'll not mention this again, it's very important that drivers (you and others who might read this) realise that it's not an opthamologist's call but the DVLAs. It doesn't matter what the opthamologist's opinion is, if you have a disability that could impair your driving ability it is the DVLA's decision as to whether you can drive. They _must_ be told, and _must_ have cleared the person for driving before they get back behind a wheel.[/QUOTE]
I asked him if i was entitled to drive by law. He replied "Yes you are". He wasn't giving an opinion that my eyesight was good for driving,he was telling me that going off my test results i was legally allowed to drive.


----------



## davidphilips (4 Jun 2018)

What i think after reading this thread is how easy it is to get into a disagreement, know i hate to get into a disagreement and know how easy it is for any confrontation to turn into something worse.

Can only hope that the young cyclist after some reflection would realise his error and become both a safer cyclist and a better person but this may be to much to hope for.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266659, member: 45"]See my previous post. It's not his decision.[/QUOTE]
But he's saying that there wasn't anything wrong with my eye in the first place. It's not as if there was something wrong with it then it's got better. If i have to inform the DVLA that my eyesight is no different to how it's been for the last 38 years of me having a license,then suely every other driver would have to do the same?. Ok,this is how the phone call would probably go if i did call them


Me..Hello DVLA,i'd just like to tell you that my eyesight is exactly the same as it was when i was 17,apart from i can't see out my right one.

DVLA...Oh right,er that's nice but why are you bothering to tell us this?

Me...Well the opthamologist i saw said my eyesight was good and i was entitled to drive by law,but someone on Cycle Chat says that i have to inform you, so that's why i'm calling you.

DVLA...No,if he(opthamologist) says so then it's fine by us.

Me..Ok thanks for that and sorry i wasted your time.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

davidphilips said:


> What i think after reading this thread is how easy it is to get into a disagreement, know i hate to get into a disagreement and know how easy it is for any confrontation to turn into something worse.
> 
> *Can only hope that the young cyclist after some reflection would realise his error and become both a safer cyclist and a better person but this may be to much to hope for.*



Give him a chance. As i drove away he put his head down and didn't give anymore lip. He might have thought "what a prick i was". I think we all did daft things and gobbed off when caught out,to try and get out of it,in our youth.


----------



## User10119 (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> my eyesight is exactly the same as it was when i was 17,apart from i can't see out my right one.


Huh?
Could you see out of your right eye when you were 17? And now you can't see out of your right eye, and that's that a new/relatively thing? If I've understood what you're saying there, I don't understand how you can possibly claim that your eyesight is 'exactly the same' - unless, of course, I've missed something or misunderstood something.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266680, member: 10119"]Huh?
Could you see out of your right eye when you were 17? And now you can't see out of your right eye, and that's that a new/relatively thing? If I've understood what you're saying there, I don't understand how you can possibly claim that your eyesight is 'exactly the same' - unless, of course, I've missed something or misunderstood something.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point,which i raised with him. He said that i have 100% vision to which i replied that i might have in one eye but obviously not both. He said having just one working eye shouldn't make a difference to my general eyesight. I said "Ok,so if i'm flying a two engined plane and one of those engines cuts out then i'm left with one 100% working engine,but that won't stop the plane crashing". He didn't reply to that,he just wished me a good day and said he'd see me again in 6 months. Now why would he want to see me again if there's nothing wrong with my eyesight,i wondered.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

User13710 said:


> Wasn't the fact that you needed a cane to feel for the kerb, because you couldn't see it, part of your claim for some benefit or other? Are you sure you actually saw this cyclist at all?


I really shouldn't be replying to such comments as like i said previously,this thread isn't about my eyesight.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Ok,one last comment. I do consider myself to be one of the safest drivers out there. Having one working eye makes me think "be alert all the time". Maybe having just one working eye is actually an advantage and not a disadvantage,when it comes to driving standards.


----------



## TVC (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Ok,one last comment. I do consider myself to be one of the safest drivers out there. Having one working eye makes me think "be alert all the time". Maybe having just one working eye is actually an advantage and not a disadvantage,when it comes to driving standards.


So why did you pull across the path of a cyclist that you had already decided was going to do something stupid? Not the actions of a driver with high standards.


----------



## Inertia (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I really shouldn't be replying to such comments as like i said previously,this thread isn't about my eyesight.


What is it about? I thought it was about an incident between you and a cyclist. Considering you did see him, his lights are about as relevant as your eyesight.

He should have lights after dark, and it would appear, you should inform the DVLA if there is a change to your eyesight.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Anyway,back on track about this topic and in particular the roundabout where it happened. This isn't the first time i've been involved in an incident at this roundabout. About 3 years ago i was on my bike,just near this roundabout when i saw a two car collision on the roundabout. One car had pulled off the supermarket car park onto the roundabout when it was side impacted by someone coming from the same direction as him on a bike was on Friday night. Luckily no one was injured but seeing as i was a witness to the incident i was asked to give a statement by the driver who was side impacted,for his insurers. He didn't get back to me which i thought was a bit impolite as i'm sure that my letter to his insurers helped his case and therefore helped him get compensation for damages to his car.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

TVC said:


> So why did you pull across the path of a cyclist that you had already decided was going to do something stupid? Not the actions of a driver with high standards.


No comment.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Inertia said:


> What is it about? I thought it was about an incident between you and a cyclist. Considering you did see him, his lights are about as relevant as your eyesight.
> 
> He should have lights after dark, and it would appear, you should inform the DVLA if there is a change to your eyesight.


No comment.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Anyway,back on track about this topic and in particular the roundabout where it happened. This isn't the first time i've been involved in an incident at this roundabout. About 3 years ago i was on my bike,just near this roundabout when i saw a two car collision on the roundabout. One car had pulled off the supermarket car park onto the roundabout when it was side impacted by someone coming from the same direction as him on a bike was on Friday night. Luckily no one was injured but seeing as i was a witness to the incident i was asked to give a statement by the driver who was side impacted,for his insurers. He didn't get back to me which i thought was a bit impolite as i'm sure that my letter to his insurers helped his case and therefore helped him get compensation for damages to his car.


As had been pointed out your current claim of perfect vision is totally at odds with what you have claimed previously. Your protestations that this thread is not about your eyesight is bunkum, this thread is directly related to your reaction to "seeing" a cyclist, how's your depth perception for starters? 
Your post above smacks rather of someone desperately trying to divert attention away from the real issue here, your eyesight or lack of it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266714, member: 45"]By not informing the DVLA that you're blind in one eye, you're committing a criminal offence. And you're driving without insurance.

https://help.rnib.org.uk/help/daily-living/transport-travel/monocular-drive[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong and I haven't read older threads where Accy may have divulged his monocularity (is that a word?) in more detail but my understanding from this statement :



Accy cyclist said:


> my eyesight is no different to how it's been for the last 38 years of me having a license,



... is that he has always driven with one eye since he passed his test, so nothing has changed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I could be wrong and I haven't read older threads where Accy may have divulged his monocularity (is that a word?) in more detail but my understanding from this statement :
> 
> 
> 
> ... is that he has always driven with one eye since he passed his test, so nothing has changed.



Scratch that @User , I've just seen your post #113.


----------



## User10119 (4 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I could be wrong and I haven't read older threads where Accy may have divulged his monocularity (is that a word?) in more detail but my understanding from this statement :
> 
> 
> 
> ... is that he has always driven with one eye since he passed his test, so nothing has changed.


I went to look, because I didn't get an answer when I asked, and apparently not. Torn retina in, I think, 2012 and a couple of retinal ops since. So 32(ish) years of driving with two functioning eyes followed by 6(ish) of monocular vision.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Ok,just one more comment about my eyes. It's all well you lot getting het up about my eyesight but think how i feel! I think that i've been seriously messed about by the eye departments at the two local hospitals i've attended. I have tried to convince them that having one working eye just isn't as good as having two,but they just won't accept it! It's all very well this opthamologist saying that i have 100% vision but as i said in post number 110,it doesn't quite work like that. You only have a short time with your appointment and in that time they do the same old depth perception and peripheral vision tests. It's as if they're going round the houses again and again. I was supposed to go for another appointment last Wednesday,but i cancelled it. Why do i need more tests if my eyesight is 100% i ask? They tell us that the NHS is down on its knees and people are having unnecessary appointments for trivial things,well tell that to the eye departments at the Blackburn and Accrington hospitals!


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266806, member: 10119"]I went to look, because I didn't get an answer when I asked, and apparently not. Torn retina in, I think, 2012 and a couple of retinal ops since. So 32(ish) years of driving with two functioning eyes followed by 6(ish) of monocular vision.[/QUOTE]
Yes,that is correct.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5266848, member: 45"]I sympathise. I can't imagine losing that much of one sense. But, you've still got an obligation to follow the law and make sure you're legal and safe on the road. For your sake and everyone else's. As I've said, the DVLA may say (after getting the information they need or sending you for an eye test like they did with me) that you're OK to drive. You have to be aware though that they might stop you.[/QUOTE]
Ok,i'm going to contact them this week and see what they say.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Jun 2018)

Do any of you have their e-mail address or phone number by any chance?


----------



## theclaud (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Do any of you have their e-mail address or phone number by any chance?


----------



## theclaud (4 Jun 2018)

Here you go.

https://www.gov.uk/contact-the-dvla/y/driving-and-medical-issues


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2018)

Accy - Supertroll.


----------



## potsy (4 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Do any of you have their e-mail address or phone number by any chance?


http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=dvla+phone+number


----------



## Phaeton (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Give it a rest! This thread is about what i've described in my opening post. It's not about my eyesight etc. I'm perfectly entitled to drive,the opthamologist said so the last time i had an appointment with him. Anyway,as i said,this thread is not about my eyesight,so let's keep it that way please.


I'm sorry it was a genuine question, I don't often drop in on your diatribes as I know they will just be you ranting against an unfair society or rather an unfair society to you in your view. I'll not ask again don't worry


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Right,i've sent them an e-mail with my name and D.O.B etc. It says they'll get back to me within 6 weeks. They don't ask what the medical condition is,so i'm assuming they'll ask that when they contact me. Maybe they will send me for a medical or write to the opthamologist who examined me for his findings. One way or another this will be resolved hopefully soon, then i can either carry on driving or surrender my license. I think they'll take the word of the opthamologist and just have it on record that i'm blind in my right eye. I think they'll let me keep my license when they look at my driving history and see that i've only had 3 points on my license in 38 years and that was for a triviality. They'll see that since losing my right eyesight nearly 6 years ago i haven't had an accident or been given points,so this should satisfy them that i'm a competent driver,even if i only have one functioning eye.


----------



## Tim Hall (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Right,i've sent them an e-mail with my name and D.O.B etc. It says they'll get back to me within 6 weeks. They don't ask what the medical condition is,so i'm assuming they'll ask that when they contact me. Maybe they will send me for a medical or write to the opthamologist who examined me for his findings. One way or another this will be resolved hopefully soon, then i can either carry on driving or surrender my license. I think they'll take the word of the opthamologist and just have it on record that i'm blind in my right eye. I think they'll let me keep my license when they look at my driving history and see that i've only had 3 points on my license in 38 years and that was for a triviality. They'll see that since losing my right eyesight nearly 6 years ago i haven't had an accident or been given points,so this should satisfy them that i'm a competent driver,even if i only have one functioning eye.


Well done for contacting them.


----------



## User6179 (5 Jun 2018)

I wish everyone would stop harassing @Accy cyclist about his driving, he is perfectly safe !


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> That's a good point,which i raised with him. He said that i have 100% vision to which i replied that i might have in one eye but obviously not both. He said having just one working eye shouldn't make a difference to my general eyesight. I said "Ok,so if i'm flying a two engined plane and one of those engines cuts out then i'm left with one 100% working engine,but that won't stop the plane crashing". He didn't reply to that,he just wished me a good day and said he'd see me again in 6 months. Now why would he want to see me again if there's nothing wrong with my eyesight,i wondered.


I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I just want to point out something that I think has been missed here - stereoscopic vision (apologies if it has been mentioned and I missed it). Two eyes are not just two times one eye in terms of quantity of function (the way, say, kidneys are). With only eye, stereoscopic vision does not work, and that means depth perception is impaired. People with loss of vision in one eye can develop alternative depth vision using different visual clues, and can still be good drivers - that's something I learned from a driving instructor friend who successfully taught someone with one eye, and he spoke with somebody medical (I can't remember who) to learn about it.

But no, whatever an opthalmologist might have said, you do not have 100% vision - at least in the sense that you do not have stereoscopic vision and normal depth perception. Perhaps they meant you have 100% vision in the usual test charts and the like, which do not test stereoscopic vision?



Accy cyclist said:


> Ok,one last comment. I do consider myself to be one of the safest drivers out there...


The one thing I have to say here is... doesn't everyone?


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Right,i've sent them an e-mail with my name and D.O.B etc. It says they'll get back to me within 6 weeks. They don't ask what the medical condition is,so i'm assuming they'll ask that when they contact me. Maybe they will send me for a medical or write to the opthamologist who examined me for his findings. One way or another this will be resolved hopefully soon, then i can either carry on driving or surrender my license. I think they'll take the word of the opthamologist and just have it on record that i'm blind in my right eye. I think they'll let me keep my license when they look at my driving history and see that i've only had 3 points on my license in 38 years and that was for a triviality. They'll see that since losing my right eyesight nearly 6 years ago i haven't had an accident or been given points,so this should satisfy them that i'm a competent driver,even if i only have one functioning eye.


I've just spoken with my driving instructor friend, and he's not quite as optimistic. Firstly, he reckons you could well get into trouble for not having informed the DVLA six years ago. Secondly, they may well examine your medical history and judge it on that, but they might want you to sit a fresh eye test specifically with respect to driving, looking for things like peripheral vision and depth perception - and they may well suspend your licence until that's done.

Finally, he also asked, did you inform your insurance company? If not, you have probably been driving without valid insurance for six years.

Not trying to be harsh on you here, just passing on what a driving instructor said.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> But no, whatever an opthalmologist might have said, you do not have 100% vision - at least in the sense that you do not have stereoscopic vision and normal depth perception. Perhaps they meant you have 100% vision in the usual test charts and the like, which do not test stereoscopic vision?



That is what i've been trying to get them to understand! Like my two engined plane analogy,one engine may be working at 100% but if the other isn't then the plane isn't functioning at 100%. They just test my right eye and say it's working perfectly well,but they don't take into account that without my right eye things can be difficult. As for driving,my depth perception is ok. I can judge distances and can brake etc accordingly. Width is a problem though. Judging how far i am away from parked vehicles is difficult sometimes. Not only when i'm driving but also when i'm cycling sometimes. I remember the bloke who ran the Wednesday bike rides i went on. He was constantly telling me to "get in,don't cycle in the middle of the lane". I was probably misjudging the distance between me and parked vehicles. Or it could've been because i have a fear of being doored,like most cyclists do.


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> That is what i've been trying to get them to understand! Like my two engined plane analogy,one engine may be working at 100% but if the other isn't then the plane isn't functioning at 100%.


My point is that it's worse than just the plane analogy. It's not just that you can do everything you could before just not as well, it's that you can't do stereoscopic vision _at all_ with only one eye.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> My point is that it's worse than just the plane analogy. It's not just that you can do everything you could before just not as well, it's that you can't do stereoscopic vision _at all_ with only one eye.


So what would happen if they took my license off me? Would they have to issue me with a bus pass?


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> So what would happen if they took my license off me? Would they have to issue me with a bus pass?


I've no idea, sorry. I know local councils are responsible for bus passes (including for various disabilities), so I guess contacting them would be your best bet.


----------



## Phaeton (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> So what would happen if they took my license off me? Would they have to issue me with a bus pass?


Why do you feel it is their responsibility to provide you with a method of transport?


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> My point is that it's worse than just the plane analogy. It's not just that you can do everything you could before just not as well, it's that you can't do stereoscopic vision _at all_ with only one eye.


I know i keep saying it,but at the end of my last examination i asked the opthamologist if i was entitled to a buss pass due to me being blind in one eye. He replied "Unfortunately not as you have perfect vision in your left eye and the law states that you are entitled to drive,so no bus pass i'm afraid". The only thing i can think of that maybe makes him wrong is that he sounded like he was from Spain(his name and accent made me think this) and that he was thinking about Spanish and not British law. Maybe that's the case?


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Why do you feel it is their responsibility to provide you with a method of transport?


Councils do provide bus passes for people with disabilities, and blind or partially sighted is one of the categories (though what degree of partial sight, I don't know).


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> I've no idea, sorry. I know local councils are responsible for bus passes (including for various disabilities), so I guess contacting them would be your best bet.


I contacted them last year about one. They told me that i'd need a letter form an opthamologist to qualify for one. I think they have to give you a bus pass if they take your license off you. A bus pass is ok,but no where near as good as a driving license as busses only run to certain places and around here they stop running after 9pm.


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I know i keep saying it,but at the end of my last examination i asked the opthamologist if i was entitled to a buss pass due to me being blind in one eye. He replied "Unfortunately not as you have perfect vision in your left eye and the law states that you are entitled to drive,so no bus pass i'm afraid". The only thing i can think of that maybe makes him wrong is that he sounded like he was from Spain(his name and accent made me think this) and that he was thinking about Spanish and not British law. Maybe that's the case?


Again, as others have suggested, the opthamologist's judgment on the law has no more weight than the butcher's or the postman's. And my driving instructor friend (whose opinion, obviously, is also not law but I'd trust his knowledge over an opthamologist) says "you have perfect vision in your left eye and the law states that you are entitled to drive" is nonsense - it's decided on a case-by-case basis. Why he might be wrong, I have no idea - and speculation doesn't really help.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> So what would happen if they took my license off me? Would they have to issue me with a bus pass?




Have a read at this on the RNIB site: https://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss

I know I'm entitled to a disabled person's railcard (1/3 discount on fares) because I wear hearing aids. You'd probably qualify for that at least.


----------



## Profpointy (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I just want to point out something that I think has been missed here - stereoscopic vision (apologies if it has been mentioned and I missed it). Two eyes are not just two times one eye in terms of quantity of function (the way, say, kidneys are). With only eye, stereoscopic vision does not work, and that means depth perception is impaired. People with loss of vision in one eye can develop alternative depth vision using different visual clues, and can still be good drivers - that's something I learned from a driving instructor friend who successfully taught someone with one eye, and he spoke with somebody medical (I can't remember who) to learn about it.
> 
> But no, whatever an opthalmologist might have said, you do not have 100% vision - at least in the sense that you do not have stereoscopic vision and normal depth perception. Perhaps they meant you have 100% vision in the usual test charts and the like, which do not test stereoscopic vision?
> 
> ...



I have it on good authority, (from a PhD physicist whose speciality was 3d image perception and displays) that depth /distance perception from two eyes only really apllied to close up things - sewing, watchmaking etc). It would not help distance perception in driving, though you would obviously have a wider perioheral view. Incidentally that's why 3d movies are a bit of a false gimick rather than reality.

Also there is certainly no automatic ban for blind in one eye driving.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Have a read at this on the RNIB site: https://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss
> 
> I know I'm entitled to a disabled person's railcard (1/3 discount on fares) because I wear hearing aids. You'd probably qualify for that at least.


I contacted the RNIB when i lost my right eyesight nearly 6 years ago. Just like the others they said that i wasn't classed as being blind or visually impaired and therefore i wasn't entitled to any help. Can you see why now that i'm a little bit angry with the world?! I'm expected to do things that i just can't do or do as well as i could with both eyes working. What i'm being told is that you have one eye so you'll just have to put up with it. One example of why i'm pissed off! The job centre keeps sending me suggestions for things like building site labourer where i'd have to climb ladders carrying heavy weights and stuff. Oh that'd be good wouldn't it(!) One bloody eye,two hip/leg breaks not to mention the other things yet they think i should be a builder's labourer ffs! They even send me suggestions for *driver* delivery jobs!


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Profpointy said:


> I have it on good authority, (from a PhD physicist whose speciality was 3d image perception and displays) that depth /distance perception from two eyes only really apllied to close up things - sewing, watchmaking etc). It would not help distance perception in driving, though you would obviously have a wider perioheral view. Incidentally that's why 3d movies are a bit of a false gimick rather than reality.
> 
> Also there is certainly no automatic ban for blind in one eye driving.


Indeed, it's distance specific, and the further away we're looking the less effective is our stereoscopic vision - because our eyes are really quite close together. But I don't accept the catregoric claim that stereoscopic vision only works for very close-up things (even if the claim came from a PhD), as we can all observe how much harder it is to judge everyday distances with one eye closed - try it and see. And drivers, by definition, hit things that are close to them.

And no, there is indeed no automatic ban for blind in one eye driving - nobody is suggesting that. But it's not automatically allowed either.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Alan O said:


> as we can all observe how much harder it is to judge everyday distances with one eye closed - try it and see.



Balls being thrown or kicked in my direction are a problem. I know it's not an everyday thing but say if someone just happened to say "catch it" as they threw a ball at me i'd have to embarrassingly decline, as attempting to catch it would be even more embarrassing. I've mentioned it before on CC. When it comes to crossing a road (a busy one like outside here for example) i can't just look each way and think it's safe. Instead i have to look as far as i can and draw a line in my head from the furthest distance to where i am,to convince myself that a vehicle isn't approaching. You know i should be saying these things when i see the eye departments,but they just want to get you out asap. I'd like to have at least 15 minutes with someone there and explain what i'm saying on here.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

I've just checked my e-mails and found this.

Dear Mr (deleted for security reasons)

Thank you for your enquiry received on 5/6/2018.
Your case reference number is (deleted for security reasons)


The law requires you to tell us about any medical condition which could affect your ability to drive safely, however we can’t do this via email.

Depending on your medical condition and what vehicles you can drive, you may be able to use our new service which allows you to tell us online.

*Other ways to tell us*
If you can’t use this service you should download the relevant medical questionnaire and send them to us.

If you’re unable to print the medical questionnaire you should call our contact centre on:

0300 790 6806
Monday to Friday 8:00am to 5:30pm and Saturday 8:00am to 1:00pm

Alternatively, you can write to the following address:

Drivers Medical Group
DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1TU


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> I contacted the RNIB when i lost my right eyesight nearly 6 years ago. Just like the others they said that i wasn't classed as being blind or visually impaired and therefore i wasn't entitled to any help. Can you see why now that i'm a little bit angry with the world?! I'm expected to do things that i just can't do or do as well as i could with both eyes working. What i'm being told is that you have one eye so you'll just have to put up with it. One example of why i'm pissed off! The job centre keeps sending me suggestions for things like building site labourer where i'd have to climb ladders carrying heavy weights and stuff. Oh that'd be good wouldn't it(!) One bloody eye,two hip/leg breaks not to mention the other things yet they think i should be a builder's labourer ffs! They even send me suggestions for *driver* delivery jobs!




Having sight in only one eye is definitely a visual impairment although it might not be enough of an impairment to get you a bus pass. It explains this in the link I posted for you:

"_If you have lost the sight in one of your eyes, your ophthalmologist will not be able to certify you as sight impaired or severely sight impaired unless you have significant sight loss in your other eye. This is because your other eye will largely compensate for the loss of sight in the affected eye." _​
So if you want to determine whether or not you do qualify, you'll have to undergo the tests explained in that link and hope that your ophthalmologist agrees and issues you with a CVI.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

https://www.driving-medical-condition.service.gov.uk/conditions/search

When i get to the above bit and state my condition it won't let me continue.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Right, i stated their "loss of an eye" as it wouldn't accept my "I'm blind in one eye" submission.

https://www.driving-medical-conditi...ons/loss-of-an-eye/non-notifiable-vision/VIS3

*You don't need to tell DVLA about your Loss of an eye*

As you can see i don't have to inform them about my condition. Obviously if you've lost an eye(one of the options) then you're worse off than being blind in one eye. So if it's ok to drive with just one eye,it's ok to drive with two eyes,even though only one of them works..yes..no?


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5267353, member: 45"]You've talked about using a white cane when walking before. That suggests more of an issue than only having (perfect) use of one eye.

Can you see perfectly out of one eye, or is your eyesight so poor that you need to use a cane?[/QUOTE]
I honestly cannot remember talking about using a white cane/stick. If i did i was probably saying it in a light hearted way. I did however mention that i use a trekking stick to help me judge stair,kerb depths etc. I still do.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

So it seems that i'm entitled to drive by law and that the opthamologist was right after all. If that's the case,i'd just like to say that in my opinion driving with one functioning eye just isn't the same as with two,but if the system doesn't make provision for you to get around if you should happen to surrender your license voluntarily,thinking that you may be a danger on the road then what are the alternatives apart from continuing to drive? The only consolation i can think of it that when you drive with one working eye you're less likely to take risks and you do tend to drive very carefully,as if you're retaking your driving test for example. Well i do,but i can't speak for the others.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2018)

To save anyone else having to go through the questionnaire, here's the result for 'loss of an eye':







If Accy's ophthalmologist has carried out the field of vision test and established he meets the standard for driving then I'd say he's met the DVLA's requirements..


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Right, i stated their "loss of an eye" as it wouldn't accept my "I'm blind in one eye" submission.
> 
> https://www.driving-medical-conditi...ons/loss-of-an-eye/non-notifiable-vision/VIS3
> 
> ...


That does seem strange to me, and yes, it does suggest you're fine. However, the same page says "You could be prosecuted if you drive without meeting the standards of vision for driving".

And at https://help.rnib.org.uk/help/daily-living/transport-travel/monocular-drive it says...

_Yes, you may still be able to drive a car or motorcycle if you only have one eye or sight loss in one eye (sometimes called "monocular vision"). This is provided that:

_

_the DVLA is satisfied that you have sufficient sight in your other eye (including a normal field of vision)_
_your doctor or eye specialist confirms to the DVLA that you have adjusted to the loss of sight in one eye. Many people take up to three months to adapt safely to driving with one eye._
You really need to be absolutely certain here, so I strongly suggest you call the DVLA on the number provided. It sounds like you should be fine, but I think you should make absolutely sure.

And you really do need to tell your insurer too.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5267361, member: 45"]well if that's the case it suggests that your monocular vision isn't "perfect"[/QUOTE] My monocular vision is ok. It's just being monocular that presents problems. I can see well out of my left eye, but without my right eye i can't always judge distances.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> To save anyone else having to go through the questionnaire, here's the result for 'loss of an eye':
> 
> View attachment 412700
> 
> ...


Well then i'm glad if that's the case. At least i now know that i'm not breaking the law and that the opthamologist wasn't just saying what he said to get me out of his clinic so he could see his next patient.


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

More here - https://www.gov.uk/monocular-vision-and-driving

"_You don’t need to tell DVLA if you have monocular vision if you’re still able to meet the standards of vision for driving._"

That also suggests you should be fine, providing you're sure you can meet those standards. And, surprising though it might seem, your opthamologist might have been right all along.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5267376, member: 45"]Does having to use a stick to judge kerbs and steps suggest that you don't meet the legal eyesight standard?

My one-eyed biker friend managed steps and kerbs without a stick, which does suggest that there's something else in your case.[/QUOTE]


Alan O said:


> Indeed, it's distance specific, and the further away we're looking the less effective is our stereoscopic vision - because our eyes are really quite close together. But I don't accept the catregoric claim that stereoscopic vision only works for very close-up things (even if the claim came from a PhD), as we can all observe how much harder it is to judge everyday distances with one eye closed - try it and see. And drivers, by definition, hit things that are close to them.
> 
> And no, there is indeed no automatic ban for blind in one eye driving - nobody is suggesting that. But it's not automatically allowed either.


Doesn't the above post explain it?


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

User3094 said:


> TFFT @Accy cyclist can you start another thread now please, I'm bored of this one


To think it was started to discuss someone on a bike without lights and it's ended up discussing my eyesight...again! Anyway,at least we've cleared a few things up and now i and others know that i'm legally entitled to drive and i won't be getting a thousand pound fine etc etc. As long as someone doesn't come up with more worrying stuff that is!


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5267388, member: 45"]Yes. It says that it's not an automatic entitlement and that you need to meet the standards. Having to use a stick to find hazards suggests that your eyesight may not.[/QUOTE]
Maybe i use the stick just for a bit of support due to my hip/leg breaks and i don't really need it for my eyesight,but i've convinced myself that i do? If i said that to the physio dept' they'd tell me to bin the stick as i'm relying on it too much. But let's not get into a discussion about that as well eh.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Right,i'm off into Accrington town centre to do this and that. I'm cycling the 8 miles there and back, so you Accy's eyesight doubters can rest at ease that i won't be doing a Mr Magoo and crashing into things or finding that i've driven to the top of a skyscraper and found myself and my car balancing on some big steel supported by a crane girder or similar!


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Jun 2018)

Accy's a scriptwriter for Eastenders and he's testing how far our credulity can be stretched before he pens the next episode.
His threads are entertaining, but I suspect mostly bollocks.


----------



## Phaeton (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Right,i'm off into Accrington town centre to do this and that. I'm cycling the 8 miles there and back,


But you're angry with the job centre for suggesting you take a job that involves walking because of your hip problems,


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Phaeton said:


> But you're angry with the job centre for suggesting you take a job that involves walking because of your hip problems,



Not everyone who has difficulty walking has difficulty cycling. In fact, for many with joint problems it eases their discomfort while keeping them mobile.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick


----------



## Alan O (5 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Not everyone who has difficulty walking has difficulty cycling. In fact, for many with joint problems it eases their discomfort while keeping them mobile.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick


Indeed - it can be good non-weight-bearing physiotherapy.

My doc (who's maybe a bit biased as he's a keen cyclist) reckons cycling is good physiotherapy for lots of things - he certainly says it's good physio for my being so fat!


----------



## TVC (5 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Right,i'm off into Accrington town centre to do this and that. I'm cycling the 8 miles there and back, so you Accy's eyesight doubters can rest at ease that i won't be doing a Mr Magoo and crashing into things or finding that i've driven to the top of a skyscraper and found myself and my car balancing on some big steel supported by a crane girder or similar!


Cool, when you get back we can talk about loss of sight being a notifiable disability that must be declared on an insurance application.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Not everyone who has difficulty walking has difficulty cycling. In fact, for many with joint problems it eases their discomfort while keeping them mobile.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick


That's true! I had a day off cycling yesterday as my hip was hurting after doing nearly 50 miles over the weekend. It wasn't too bad this morning,but after doing 25 miles this afternoon i can't feel any pain whatsoever!


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Jun 2018)

Phaeton said:


> But you're angry with the job centre for suggesting you take a job that involves walking because of your hip problems,


There's a big difference between climbing up and down ladders carrying building material and rotating your leg on a bike. Cycling is fairly non weight bearing,though i could do with upping my cadence from around 50 to maybe 70 rpm, as having a low cadence does mean more pressure on the hips and legs.


----------



## dantheman (5 Jun 2018)

I can't believe I actually read all this.... What a waste hahaha.... 

And I personally think that the cyclist was being stupid.. Suppose being young he still thinks he is invincible.. Give way to the right.. I expect car stoat give way to me on my bike if I'm on their right/on roundabout etc, surely it's a matter of common sense to do the reverse to a car In the same situation? 

Right or wrong, he was stupid.. Maybe the cyclist had only one eye, maybe one brain cell.. Having right to be on the road doesn't negate the need for common sense, and it feels like the consensus here is that only motor vehicle drivers need to realise that..


----------



## Inertia (5 Jun 2018)

dantheman said:


> I can't believe I actually read all this.... What a waste hahaha....
> 
> And I personally think that the cyclist was being stupid.. Suppose being young he still thinks he is invincible.. Give way to the right.. I expect car stoat give way to me on my bike if I'm on their right/on roundabout etc, surely it's a matter of common sense to do the reverse to a car In the same situation?
> 
> Right or wrong, he was stupid.. Maybe the cyclist had only one eye, maybe one brain cell.. Having right to be on the road doesn't negate the need for common sense, and it feels like the consensus here is that only motor vehicle drivers need to realise that..


I don’t think anyone said the cyclist was in the right or that only motor drivers need common sense. If the thread seems weighed towards discussing the drivers actions that may be because the driver is here to defend himself.


----------



## dantheman (5 Jun 2018)

Fair comment.


----------



## Randomnerd (5 Jun 2018)

I planned on watching Eastenders tonight, but read this thread instead. Think I’ll stick with Eastenders: it’s easier to believe, and less depressing. Ooh, Yorkshire Vets. Man with his arm up a llama’s sphincter. Again, it’s a tough call, but the llama sphincter just edges it.


----------



## Phaeton (5 Jun 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I know I'm entitled to a disabled person's railcard (1/3 discount on fares) because I wear hearing aids. You'd probably qualify for that at least.


I didn't know that, I am supposed to wear them, but find they make my ears itch terribly


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jun 2018)

Phaeton said:


> I didn't know that, I am supposed to wear them, but find they make my ears itch terribly




I only found out by accident recently. All you need is a copy of the front of your little booklet for the batteries and you pay £20 for a one-year card or £54 for a three-year card.
https://www.disabledpersons-railcard.co.uk/using-your-railcard/the-benefits/


----------



## Mr Celine (6 Jun 2018)

TVC said:


> Cool, when you get back we can talk about loss of sight being a notifiable disability that must be declared on an insurance application.


Depends on the insurance company. For example Motability ask no questions about disabilities and have no clauses in their policies requiring notification of worsening medical conditions.


----------



## Mr Celine (6 Jun 2018)

[QUOTE 5269328, member: 45"]They stipulate that the DVLA are aware of your condition and have confirmed no restrictions.[/QUOTE]
But don't require to be told of new or worsening conditions. (Unless this has changed in the last two years.)


----------



## Dallbeury (7 Jun 2018)

Accy cyclist said:


> Ok this happened last night.
> Last night i went out in my car to various places and then onto the local supermarket. It was a wet night and dark as it was around 9.15pm. The first thing that bugged me was seeing someone driving a car without even its sidelights on. A black car at that which made it even harder to see. I said to myself something like "bloody idiot(as i flashed him/her and didn't get a response),next i'll be seeing some tit on a bike without lights or reflectors". Then low and behold about 10 minutes later i came across him! There i was going round the mini roundabout which leads onto the supermarket car park when i spotted this idiot hurtling down the road towards me. As you'll know i had the right of way. I indicated going round the roundabout(even though i'd say about 50-60% don't),to let this person on a bike know that i would be turning right so he'd better stop to give way. Did he stop? No he didn't! As i was heading for the 3 o clock turn off he cycled right across my path,causing me to brake and sound my horn. I was met with shouts of abuse. I let it go and drove onto the shop car park to see that this idiot on a bike had decided to follow me. I suspected a confrontation and i was right. He approached me as i got out of my car and asked abruptly why i didn't give way to him. I explained that i had the right of way and he made it hard for me to see him as he didn't have lights on his bike. He then ranted that he had to swerve to avoid me(still didn't get it that he was supposed to stop as i went round the roundabout) and this is the best one...he didn't need lights by law as his bike had reflectors fitted. But wait,it gets even better/worse! A bloke then came over saying he'd seen what happened. I expected him to back me up but no. He said that the cyclist was in the right as wait for this..."Cyclists under 18 can ride without lights if they have reflectors fitted"(this person on a bike was about 15/16 i'd say). Only under 18 mind you. As soon as they reach 18 they have to have lights on their bikes,according to him who witnessed this. So off went the one on a bike,with his actions exonerated by this person who i thought had come over to back me up,but took the side of the idiot without lights on his bike. Thanks for reading this. Posting about it helps get it off my chest!



Having enjoyed cycling from the 50s to 80s Standards of courtesy seem to have changed. I drive down a dual carriageway with cycle paths on both sides. The LED headlights on cyclists coming towards you using the cycle path next to the road can be so bright as to be dazzling. I'm not saying that current cyclists can never do anything right but a bit of consideration would go a long way to reducing the animosity felt by drivers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jun 2018)

Dallbeury said:


> Having enjoyed cycling from the 50s to 80s Standards of courtesy seem to have changed. I drive down a dual carriageway with cycle paths on both sides. The LED headlights on cyclists coming towards you using the cycle path next to the road can be so bright as to be dazzling. I'm not saying that current cyclists can never do anything right but a bit of consideration would go a long way to reducing the animosity felt by drivers.



Dazzling lights can be a problem on trucks, motorbikes and cars too but I don't feel animosity towards all members of those groups because of a few who are inconsiderate.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (7 Jun 2018)

Ban xenon and HID lights. While we're at it how about those daytime LEDs? All that lot is way brighter than a cycle light. It's like the Close Encounters movie round my way.


----------

