# Organ donors in motion.



## Racing roadkill (1 Jun 2019)

I’m on one of my stupid length rides today. The route takes me from Upham to London and back. Every year I try to get a few of these in, every year the riding standards from some I see increasingly mortify me. Today set the bar to a new level. I was riding up towards Putney Bridge, from RP, and a guy ( wearing a Ride London jersey) came along the left of a panel van, into a closing gap, the panel van was indicating left, I saw it, he didn’t, how the hell he didn’t end up under the wheels is beyond me. That was properly stupid.


----------



## Phaeton (1 Jun 2019)

Bloody stupid drivers fault, 

Outraged of CC


----------



## guitarpete247 (1 Jun 2019)

What's with the BSO's along the North Embankment today. Thousands of them, most pulling wheelies riding through traffic coming towards them. Had police clearing the road in front of them and cycling with them. Just seen a large group doing the same up Whitehall.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (1 Jun 2019)

Unfortunate you see this a lot around here, I'm always amazed at people who have bikes into the multi thousands that wear black and don't bother with lights, jump red lights ,over take up the inside of large vehicles, at least the none cyclist ,cyclists stick to the foot paths. It makes us all look like pillocks !


----------



## Racing roadkill (1 Jun 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> What's with the BSO's along the North Embankment today. Thousands of them, most pulling wheelies riding through traffic coming towards them. Had police clearing the road in front of them and cycling with them. Just seen a large group doing the same up Whitehall.


Protest against Trump? The Mall was all messed up today with Guardsmen in full kit, I have no idea what it was, but it cost me a lot of time. I’ll let them off, it’s quintessentially British.


----------



## Biff600 (1 Jun 2019)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> I'm always amazed at people who have bikes into the multi thousands that wear black and don't bother with lights.............It makes us all look like pillocks !



I was wearing black this morning when I went for a ride, and without lights. 

What is wrong with what I wear ? And it was broad daylight, so what was the point of using lights ???


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Jun 2019)

Biff600 said:


> I was wearing black this morning when I went for a ride, and without lights.
> 
> What is wrong with what I wear ? And it was broad daylight, so what was the point of using lights ???


Black shows up well in daylight.


----------



## roadrash (1 Jun 2019)

by the way, it doesn't make us ALL look like pillocks, just the rider(s) in question


----------



## winjim (1 Jun 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> Black shows up well in daylight.


And under street lights against an illuminated road.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Jun 2019)

All black gear and proud of it.


----------



## guitarpete247 (1 Jun 2019)

I just wondered who the thousands of twonks were cycling, with police escort, along the North Embankment. Mostly teenage lads. They were pulling wheelies swerving in and out of traffic coming towards them, on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## Racing roadkill (1 Jun 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> I just wondered who the thousands of twonks were cycling, with police escort, along the North Embankment. Mostly teenage lads. They were pulling wheelies swerving in and out of traffic coming towards them, on the wrong side of the road.


Possibly the British BMX team. That’s what they do.


----------



## snorri (1 Jun 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> I just wondered who the thousands of twonks were cycling, with police escort, along the North Embankment. Mostly teenage lads. They were pulling wheelies swerving in and out of traffic coming towards them, on the wrong side of the road.



I'm at the other end of the country, but read somewhere there was a demonstration in connection with knife crime in London, there was an aerial pic of cyclists doing wheelies on a bridge.


----------



## Racing roadkill (1 Jun 2019)

snorri said:


> I'm at the other end of the country, but read somewhere there was a demonstration in connection with knife crime in London, there was an aerial pic of cyclists doing wheelies on a bridge.


It was all completely messed up in central London today. It caused me some issues that ended up with me abandoning a long ride. That really did not impress me.


----------



## Globalti (1 Jun 2019)

Waiting for our train at Euston we saw several freestyle type bikes and riders waiting for trains north and during the day there did seem to be an unusual number of roads closed in that Laandon.


----------



## guitarpete247 (1 Jun 2019)

Looks like it was this.
Problem is most of the kids seemed to have a death wish.


----------



## bladesman73 (2 Jun 2019)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> Unfortunate you see this a lot around here, I'm always amazed at people who have bikes into the multi thousands that wear black and don't bother with lights, jump red lights ,over take up the inside of large vehicles, at least the none cyclist ,cyclists stick to the foot paths. It makes us all look like pillocks !


...waiting for the day black cars have their lights on in the daytime, without them I fail to see them... sigh


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2019)

bladesman73 said:


> ...waiting for the day black cars have their lights on in the daytime, without them I fail to see them... sigh


They do.


----------



## bladesman73 (2 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> They do.


What, all of them? Never seen any. Shall we suggest they deck them out in hi viz too?


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2019)

bladesman73 said:


> What, all of them? Never seen any. Shall we suggest they deck them out in hi viz too?


I'm sorry but I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.


----------



## Dave Davenport (2 Jun 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> View attachment 468970
> 
> Looks like it was this.
> Problem is most of the kids seemed to have a death wish.


Well it's better than them stabbing each other.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jun 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> View attachment 468970
> 
> Looks like it was this.
> Problem is most of the kids seemed to have a death wish.


Looks cool to me. And no, they do not have a 'death wish'.


----------



## bladesman73 (2 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> I'm sorry but I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.


When all is said and done if you are driving a car in the daytime and you fail to see a fellow road user because that person is on a bike and wearing black, then you are Stevie Wonder and you need your licence removing from you.


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2019)

bladesman73 said:


> When all is said and done if you are driving a car in the daytime and you fail to see a fellow road user because that person is on a bike and wearing black, then you are Stevie Wonder and you need your licence removing from you.


I agree, but it seems that the powers that be perhaps do not, since they have decided that even a car in full daylight is not visible enough and have mandated that all new vehicles are fitted with daytime running lights. So we can't use them as a counterargument, and if you say you've never seen any then either you're joking, or perhaps it's you that needs to pay a bit more attention.


----------



## bladesman73 (3 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> I agree, but it seems that the powers that be perhaps do not, since they have decided that even a car in full daylight is not visible enough and have mandated that all new vehicles are fitted with daytime running lights. So we can't use them as a counterargument, and if you say you've never seen any then either you're joking, or perhaps it's you that needs to pay a bit more attention.


Why should I pay attention to black cars and whether they have their lights on in the daytime or not? I have perfect sight so can see two tonnes of motor on a road from a distance, lights on or not. If a car needs lights on in the daytime to be seen then the problem is people on the roads in control of vehicles whose sight is so poor they shouldnt be driving/cycling on the road.


----------



## Andy in Germany (3 Jun 2019)

bladesman73 said:


> Shall we suggest they deck them out in hi viz too?



This is my usual response to people suggesting I wear an orange vest when cycling or as a pedestrian.


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2019)

bladesman73 said:


> Why should I pay attention to black cars and whether they have their lights on in the daytime or not? I have perfect sight so can see two tonnes of motor on a road from a distance, lights on or not. If a car needs lights on in the daytime to be seen then the problem is people on the roads in control of vehicles whose sight is so poor they shouldnt be driving/cycling on the road.


Again I'm sorry because again I can't tell if you're joking, but are you honestly telling me that you haven't noticed that all new cars built at least in the last eight years, and probably for some time before that, have been driving around with their lights on during the day?

Seriously, are you telling me that or are you just trying to make a point?


----------



## icowden (3 Jun 2019)

Am I missing something? It doesn't matter whether the black car is visible or not, it does matter that a cyclist is visible.

When a car is hit by something (usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is a considerable amount of protection in the car to protect the contents.
When a bike is hit by something (also usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is possibly a bit of polystyrene on the head and a pair of gloves to protect the contents.

Bladesman73 - You may have perfect sight, but you are not an owl or possessed of 360 degree vision. You can see cars in front of you, but not necessarily to the side or rear of you.

Ipso facto cyclists need to make sure they are seen. Quod erat demonstrandum.

PS Studies seem to suggest that in perfect conditions, daytime running lights make little difference. However they do make a difference in poor conditions / dawn / dusk, therefore it is better to have them , than not.
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2011/TRS1009.pdf


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Am I missing something? It doesn't matter whether the black car is visible or not, it does matter that a cyclist is visible.
> 
> When a car is hit by something (usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is a considerable amount of protection in the car to protect the contents.
> When a bike is hit by something (also usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is possibly a bit of polystyrene on the head and a pair of gloves to protect the contents.
> ...


It matters because it makes a nonsense of arguments like this one



bladesman73 said:


> ...waiting for the day black cars have their lights on in the daytime, without them I fail to see them... sigh


 because that day is here, and in fact has been for some time. 



icowden said:


> When a car is hit by something (usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is a considerable amount of protection in the car to protect the contents.
> When a bike is hit by something (also usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is possibly a bit of polystyrene on the head and a pair of gloves to protect the contents.


Guns don't kill people, rappers do.


DRLs on cars contribute to the lighting arms race that has led to cyclists having stupid bright flashing lights on all the time, and attitudes such as


icowden said:


> Ipso facto cyclists need to make sure they are seen. Quod erat demonstrandum.


This implies that cyclists should use lights and high viz and if they're not seen it's their own fault. It's shifting responsibility away from from the person who can inflict the greatest harm and suggesting that a cyclist who is complying with the legal minimum of lighting requirements deserves to be at a disadvantage when it comes to safety.


DRLs are stupid. Bike lights are stupid. Anything brighter than sidelights in a built up area are unnecessary and stupid. Streetlights are perfectly adequate. Reflectors are cool.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Am I missing something? It doesn't matter whether the black car is visible or not, it does matter that a cyclist is visible.
> 
> When a car is hit by something (usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is a considerable amount of protection in the car to protect the contents.
> When a bike is hit by something (also usually another car) that hasn't seen it, there is possibly a bit of polystyrene on the head and a pair of gloves to protect the contents.
> ...



When I first read your argument I thought it was nonsense. But I'm convinced now. Due to all the Latin.


----------



## winjim (3 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> When I first read your argument I though it was nonsense. But I'm convinced now. Due to all the Latin.


It does give the post a certain_ je ne sais quoi._


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> This implies that cyclists should use lights and high viz and if they're not seen it's their own fault.



Honestly, it doesn't imply it, I pretty much stated it outright. I'll say it again if you like. If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault.
We can wish for unicorns such as clever cars that always see cyclists (maybe that will happen once we are all electric?), but all cyclists have to take some responsibility for themselves.

It is absolute fact that cars are heavy lumps of metal which can do serious injury to a cyclist whilst keeping the people in the car completely safe. Of course the driver should be aware and should be looking, but in poor conditions a cyclist should make themselves as visible as possible. Even in good conditions it doesn't hurt to be seen and to make sure you are being seen. 

I can't see why you wouldn't want to be seen? You don't have to be illuminated like a Christmas tree, but good lights and some reflective clothing just seems sensible to me, along with exercising caution when approaching difficult situations.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Honestly, it doesn't imply it, I pretty much stated it outright. I'll say it again if you like. If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault.
> We can wish for unicorns such as clever cars that always see cyclists (maybe that will happen once we are all electric?), but all cyclists have to take some responsibility for themselves.
> 
> It is absolute fact that cars are heavy lumps of metal which can do serious injury to a cyclist whilst keeping the people in the car completely safe. Of course the driver should be aware and should be looking, but in poor conditions a cyclist should make themselves as visible as possible. Even in good conditions it doesn't hurt to be seen and to make sure you are being seen.
> ...


Jesus Christ.


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

Fairly certain he won't be much help, but you can try,


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> DRLs are stupid.



Agreed, I deactivated mine.



icowden said:


> If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault.



I think I'm putting it mildly when I say that's a ridiculous statement. Are you a member of the Stockholm CC by any chance?


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Honestly, it doesn't imply it, I pretty much stated it outright. I'll say it again if you like. If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault.
> We can wish for unicorns such as clever cars that always see cyclists (maybe that will happen once we are all electric?), but all cyclists have to take some responsibility for themselves.
> 
> It is absolute fact that cars are heavy lumps of metal which can do serious injury to a cyclist whilst keeping the people in the car completely safe. Of course the driver should be aware and should be looking, but in poor conditions a cyclist should make themselves as visible as possible. Even in good conditions it doesn't hurt to be seen and to make sure you are being seen.
> ...



Do you also suggest that my daughter does not go out unaccompanied or that she should not wear the clothes she likes? I would like to be putting the pressure on those who commit the crimes to be held accountable rather than the victims.


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

I don't disagree. However there is nothing wrong with taking responsibility for yourself. 
You can put the pressure on those who commit the crimes to be held accountable all you like, but you can also take steps to keep yourself safe and reduce risk. When life isn't what you want it to be, you have to compromise a little, see things from both sides.

I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle. So in daylight, of course you are more visible, but if the weather changes? It's not always bright and sunny. It's not always bright and sunny for a whole ride.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

A person cycling in normal clothes is visible to anyone who cares to look.


If a driver isn't looking then it won't matter how much you try to look like a spaceship...


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I don't disagree. However there is nothing wrong with taking responsibility for yourself.
> You can put the pressure on those who commit the crimes to be held accountable all you like, but you can also take steps to keep yourself safe and reduce risk. When life isn't what you want it to be, you have to compromise a little, see things from both sides



I doubt that's the only thing you do though and I would argue hi viz and lights are not even close to the most important thing keeping you safe. Blind faith in being seen because you have those things is foolhardy, which is why I bet it isn't the thing you most rely on. Instead I'm willing to bet that your own observation, reading situations, road position and experience plays a greater part.



icowden said:


> I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle. So in daylight, of course you are more visible, but if the weather changes? It's not always bright and sunny. It's not always bright and sunny for a whole ride


Exactly, you've seen them and therefore just defeated your own logic. My experience of not being seen is exactly that, I've not been seen and this has happened riding with and without lights, on a bike, on a motorbike, in a car, in a van, the commonality is, the person in the other vehicle didn't see me and they didn't see me because they weren't looking properly and nothing will mitigate for that other than reading the situation and knowing it might happen and even then it might not be enough, Hi viz and lights are not even vaguely relevant in that situation.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I don't disagree. However there is nothing wrong with taking responsibility for yourself.
> You can put the pressure on those who commit the crimes to be held accountable all you like, but you can also take steps to keep yourself safe and reduce risk. When life isn't what you want it to be, you have to compromise a little, see things from both sides.
> 
> I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle. So in daylight, of course you are more visible, but if the weather changes? It's not always bright and sunny. It's not always bright and sunny for a whole ride.


Which body armour do you wear to avoid being stabbed?


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

I don't but I do take sensible precautions to avoid putting myself in a position where I might get stabbed.

Lets flip this. What are the perceived benefits of not bothering to be seen, and what are the disbenefits of wearing reflective clothing etc? So far the only argument I have seen is "lights and reflective gear is pointless and stupid". Is that it?


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> I doubt that's the only thing you do though and I would argue hi viz and lights are not even close to the most important thing keeping you safe. Blind faith in being seen because you have those things is foolhardy, which is why I bet it isn't the thing you most rely on. Instead I'm willing to bet that your own observation, reading situations, road position and experience plays a greater part.
> 
> 
> Exactly, you've seen them and therefore just defeated your own logic.



Not really, I have often seen people when I am cycling but I am far less likely to see them until the very last minute if I am driving, especially if there is oncoming traffic and it is dark. When cycling I don't get reflection and I am not in danger of hitting the person. In a car i am going faster, so reaction time is much reduced.

I can only see and react to things in front of me. I very much want to make sure than anything big and heavy behind me can see me. I like life.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> What are the perceived benefits of not bothering to be seen?



I'm visible. I don't need to 'bother to be seen', people need to bother to look where they're going. FFS.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I can only see and react to things in front of me.


I bet that's not completely true either. I'm quite often aware of what's behind me or what's coming up, this is particularly the case on roads or in situations I don't completely trust people to have seen me, I bet you are too. 

No one is saying that lights and reflective materials don't have a place or a use. I have lights on my bike all the time, I don't use them all the time because I don't see them as some magic bullet, I prefer to rely on my wits and my senses and supplement them occasionally as the situation dictates.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I don't but I do take sensible precautions to avoid putting myself in a position where I might get stabbed.
> 
> Lets flip this. What are the perceived benefits of not bothering to be seen, and what are the disbenefits of wearing reflective clothing etc? So far the only argument I have seen is "lights and reflective gear is pointless and stupid". Is that it?


What are the sensible precautions you take not to be stabbed,


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> What are the perceived benefits of not bothering to be seen, and what are the disbenefits of wearing reflective clothing etc?



Aside from an 'arms race' between different road users that pedestrians and cyclists cannot ever hope to win, you normalise the fact that everyone has to dress up to be near a road. This means that walking, horse riding and cycling becomes marginalised and seen as dangerous activities and woe betide the person who was not dressed in high vis who dared use the road. It would be far better for drivers to drive safely so that vulnerable road users are not forced into modifying their actions for the selfish others. You can see how it is heading, there are already plenty of projects for vulnerable road users to wear a beacon to alert drivers of their presence, I can just see the first court case where the driver is acquitted because the vulnerable road user had a flat battery on their beacon and was therefore not detected by the system.


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

Hasn't that horse already bolted so to speak?

Horse riding is a dangerous activity. Always has been, always will be. 

Cycling we can make safer, but in the meantime cyclists can also take steps to be safe, and much of it is done for us
I mean, most, if not all, cycling gear has at least reflective elements. To be road legal you have to have reflectors on your bike.
As a driver I would prefer to be able to see people clearly. I think it helps both parties.

I cannot forsee the court case that you suggest as the driver retains primary responsibility for their vehicle until we reach autonomous vehicle level 5, which is still a few years away.


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2019)

Reflective clothing is useless in daylight as it doesn't reflect anything. Hi viz shows up no more than black during the day, despite everyone working outdoors seeming to be covered in the stuff now.

Of course you need lights at night or in poor visibility (And I mean poor, not just when the sun goes behind a cloud), but you can overdo the number of lights and the brightness of them to the point you become a distraction to other people instead of just making them aware of you. Lights are now starting to get far too bright on cars, and in many case on bikes that I see with a searchlight on the front and half a dozen flashing lights hanging from themselves and their bikes.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> Reflective clothing is useless in daylight as it doesn't reflect anything. Hi viz shows up no more than black during the day, despite everyone working outdoors seeming to be covered in the stuff now.
> 
> Of course you need lights at night or in poor visibility (And I mean poor, not just when the sun goes behind a cloud), but you can overdo the number of lights and the brightness of them to the point you become a distraction to other people instead of just making them aware of you. Lights are now starting to get far too bright on cars, and in many case on bikes that I see with a searchlight on the front and half a dozen flashing lights hanging from themselves and their bikes.


I'm not sure you do need lights on a bike. Under streetlights you're perfectly visible and if drivers have their headlights switched on then reflectors are adequate.

I do hope everybody has their pedal reflectors fitted...


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

*Rule 60*
*At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

*Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*

The "must" indicates that it is a legal requirement


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> *Rule 60*
> *At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
> 
> *Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*
> ...


I think we know that.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

One of the biggest occurrence of injuries fir cyclists in broken collarbones. A sensible precaution cycling would be done protective armour to prevent this. It makes sense, why wouldn’t you? Frankly if you get knocked off and break your collarbone it’s really your fault for not taking the most basic of precautions.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> *Rule 60*
> *At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
> 
> *Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*
> ...


...at night...


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

winjim said:


> ...at night...



Yes. But given that most cars these days have automatic headlights which are on in poor weather, it's not unreasonable for a cyclist to do the same.

Markymark, we can "what if" all you like, but your logic doesn't work. It's not a sensible precaution to don protective armour per se. It is however, a sensible precaution to look at the reasons people sustain those injuries and to work out the best way to mitigate them. This may include body armour, but it is just as likely to include behaviour modification, accident reduction by improving visibility etc.

You can all choose to take absolutely no safety precautions. I can't help thinking that it's a good idea to prepare for today's conditions rather than a future utopian paradise. An epitaph of "Well it's not my fault you didn't see me" is of no use to me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> You can all choose to take absolutely no safety precautions. I can't help thinking that it's a good idea to prepare for today's conditions rather than a future utopian paradise. An epitaph of "Well it's not my fault you didn't see me" is of no use to me.





icowden said:


> If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault.




You may do as you please on your bike but don't be suggesting a dead cyclist asked for it by not adhering to your policy.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Yes. But given that most cars these days have automatic headlights which are on in poor weather, it's not unreasonable for a cyclist to do the same.


It is unreasonable, and more to the point it's not a legal requirement, which is what your previous post was about.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> Yes. But given that most cars these days have automatic headlights which are on in poor weather, it's not unreasonable for a cyclist to do the same.
> 
> Markymark, we can "what if" all you like, but your logic doesn't work. It's not a sensible precaution to don protective armour per se. It is however, a sensible precaution to look at the reasons people sustain those injuries and to work out the best way to mitigate them. This may include body armour, but it is just as likely to include behaviour modification, accident reduction by improving visibility etc.
> 
> You can all choose to take absolutely no safety precautions. I can't help thinking that it's a good idea to prepare for today's conditions rather than a future utopian paradise. An epitaph of "Well it's not my fault you didn't see me" is of no use to me.


I bet one of my wife's bikes that everyone here takes safety precautions. You draw your arbitrary line, others draw theirs. To blame any cyclist for being out of your line is as flawed as a cyclist who wears body armour blaming you for not.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> *Rule 60*
> *At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
> 
> *Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*
> ...



At some cyclists did not have to have lights at night either (I think 1930s) and the Cycling community fought very hard to prevent them being made mandatory. They argued that the onus is on the driver to be driving slower and to be able to see where they are going. One of the argument was that wildlife and potholes don't have lights so drivers should be more aware. Lights were then made a legal requirement and still cyclists are being killed by drivers. Can you not see the parallels with high vis or 'beacons'?


----------



## Glow worm (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle. So in daylight, of course you are more visible, but if the weather changes? It's not always bright and sunny. It's not always bright and sunny for a whole ride.



Goodness, how are any of these crazy fools even alive?!


----------



## icowden (4 Jun 2019)

I know. It's almost as if they are using an entirely segregated cycling route in a city with some of the best cycling infrastructure in the world.
Not all of us live in the Netherlands.

Milkfloat - cars were considerably slower in the 1930s. Using lights is not the reason that cyclists are being killed.
Markmark - not sure why you think I am blaming people. But then your logic is difficult to follow.
winjim - i'll continue to use my lights in bad weather, and continue to espouse it as being a good idea.
glasgowcyclist - at no point did I say anyone was "asking for it".

Glad to clear that up.
This has been fun. I wish you all the best folks, regardless of what safety precautions you like to take :-)


----------



## Andy in Germany (4 Jun 2019)

Markymark said:


> I bet one of my wife's bikes that everyone here takes safety precautions. You draw your arbitrary line, others draw theirs. To blame any cyclist for being out of your line is as flawed as a cyclist who wears body armour blaming you for not.



I thought you _always _wore body armour because of your adoring fans flinging themselves at you?


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> I thought you _always _wore body armour because of your adoring fans flinging themselves at you?


I’ve got more close protection security than Trump.


----------



## Glow worm (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I know. It's almost as if they are using an entirely segregated cycling route in a city with some of the best cycling infrastructure in the world.
> Not all of us live in the Netherlands.
> 
> )



Come off it. Wherever we are, we are jumping on a bicycle, not crossing Kandahar under enemy fire. we can all asses risk and make judgement calls on that risk ourselves. Being told to dress up like Christmas trees while just accepting dangerous or lethal driver behaviour as 'well that's just how it is' is never really going to go down very well on a cycling forum. 
I'd love to see a presumed liability law in the U.K. to start with but we all know that's never very likely given the toxic attitude to cyclists here, as demonstrated perfectly by some of your comments above.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> at no point did I say anyone was "asking for it



And yet..


icowden said:


> Honestly, it doesn't imply it,* I pretty much stated it outright. I'll say it again if you like. If cyclists are not seen it's their own fault*.



Own fault = asking for it.

Glad to have cleared that up.


----------



## bladesman73 (4 Jun 2019)

Good to see the majority on here understand that a cyclist shouldnt have to go around lit up like a fckin xmas tree in the daytime so as to be seen. Its the prerogative of all road users to pay attention and they should then see anything on the road when it is light.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jun 2019)

It might rain tomorrow in London and it’s forecast to be cloudy. It really is the sort of day I should put lights on so the cars see me. Must remember to put them
On when leaving the tube station and walking to my office crossing all those roads.


----------



## boydj (4 Jun 2019)

The most important factor in a cyclist being seen is the cyclist's position in the road. Clothing matters not a jot (I bet you'd be seen if you weren't wearing any), but if you are in the driver's line of sight then you are very likely to be seen. This means riding in a prominent position in the lane where drivers are likely to be looking. That's not to say you shouldn't have lights and reflectives at night, but even then you need to be riding where drivers are looking.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle.



And yet you saw them all, and not just a few, but the many. QED they are perfectly well visible.


----------



## winjim (4 Jun 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> And yet you saw them all, and not just a few, but the many. QED they are perfectly well visible.


But how many did he _not_ see? I guess we'll never know...


----------



## Edwardoka (5 Jun 2019)

Glow worm said:


> Goodness, how are any of these crazy fools even alive?!
> 
> View attachment 469364


I'm sorry, I can't see anyone in that photo. Why have you posted a photo of an empty road?


----------



## Edwardoka (5 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> what are the disbenefits of wearing reflective clothing etc?


1. It furthers the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity requiring specialist equipment, which discourages people from taking it up, which in turn lowers the demand for good, safe, usable infrastructure being built that facilitates active travel for everyone, not just road warriors

2. It continues to feed a false narrative about what constitutes safe behaviour and what is unsafe. For example: There are plenty of motorists out who will happily opine in comment threads under news articles about the actions of cyclists without _any _insight into _why _the cyclist has done something - worth bearing in mind that ~80% of cyclists also drive, yet hardly any drivers cycle.

3. If a cyclist isn't wearing hi-vis/daytime running lights/helmet/beacons that broadcast to cars/anti-vehicle-forcefields/magical fairy dust then it's OBVIOUSLY their own fault that they were killed COMMON SENSE INNIT (even though you don't have to look far to find cases where a cyclist was killed by a driver who was texting moments before the crash on an open stretch of road and who subsequently deleted the messages)

Since Latin is apparently _de rigeur _here: _Carthago delenda est._


----------



## Andy in Germany (5 Jun 2019)

Glow worm said:


> I'd love to see a presumed liability law in the U.K. to start with but we all know that's never very likely given the toxic attitude to cyclists here, as demonstrated perfectly by some of your comments above.



I reckon it does make a difference here, certainly.

The point with presumed liability is the underlying principle: If you make the personal choice to use a more dangerous form of transport, ie: a car, you take responsibility for that and the potential it has to harm others.

The same applies to cyclists here: If I hit a pedestrian I'm presumed liable: I am using the more 'dangerous' form of transport so I take responsibility unless there's a very good reason to think the pedestrian did something really stupid. Even then, I still should theoretically have been ready for it to happen, and with a child, this is multiplied by a factor of ten: hit a child and you are in trouble, and quite right too.

What the pedestrian or cyclist is wearing is immaterial in Germany, although if I'm hit and my lights were not working that's considered a mitigating factor.


----------



## Andy in Germany (5 Jun 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> Since Latin is apparently _de rigeur _here: _Carthago delenda est_



Well "_hic manebimus optime..._" to you.


----------



## Poacher (5 Jun 2019)

Ooh, can I play too? I confess I rarely use lights _a sulis ortu usque ad occasum_, unless conditions demand them. After dusk, then definitely _fiat lux_; otherwise, if I'm hit, then _mea culpa_.


----------



## derrick (5 Jun 2019)

BADGER.BRAD said:


> Unfortunate you see this a lot around here, I'm always amazed at people who have bikes into the multi thousands that wear black and don't bother with lights,!



My wife was lit up like a christmas tree when she got hit. If the driver is not looking it does not matter what you wear. It ain't rocket science.


----------



## Andy in Germany (5 Jun 2019)

Poacher said:


> Ooh, can I play too? I confess I rarely use lights _a sulis ortu usque ad occasum_, unless conditions demand them. *After dusk, then definitely fiat lux; *otherwise, if I'm hit, then _mea culpa_.



_carpe noctem _eh, @Poacher?


----------



## Markymark (5 Jun 2019)

Mange tout


----------



## Andy in Germany (5 Jun 2019)

Markymark said:


> Mange tout



I hope your close security are wearing Hi-vis @Markymark: otherwise you've no place in this discussion.


----------



## lazybloke (5 Jun 2019)

I don't think hiviz should be compulsory.

However, the right incentive (eg in return for presumed liability) _might_ be enough to change my mind.


----------



## bladderhead (5 Jun 2019)

Hiviz, schmiviz, if the buggers aren't looking they won't see you. They are always telling cyclists they should do this and do that - no. You should pay attention. It is my road as much as it is yours. Organ donation? Some people need some corneas.


----------



## Andy in Germany (5 Jun 2019)

I thought this may be of interest. This is one of the trams in Stuttgart:







They are ca.39m long, 3.7m high and 2.5m wide. As you can see, they are canary yellow, and have lights. Being rail-borne vehicles they tend to move fairly predictably. Trams have been a feature of the city for over a century.

You would not believe how frequently someone drives into one, or pulls out in front of them. As these trams are also about 59t empty, this tends to end badly for the car.

Now, if drivers frequently miss this, I'm not sure how making myself look like a radioactive teletubby will help.

I think the problem in this discussion is that we're all talking about subjective safety, and make our decisions depending on what we feel is safe. Personally I feel perfectly safe in normal clothes (which in my work means brown/green/black with a cloth hat (or an Akubra when I'm feeling sartorially extravagant or it's raining). I also feel it's best to have constant lights front and back, whatever conditions I'm riding in. There are some roads I won't ride, and some I'll only ride on weekends.

I'm sure others with the same commute would make different decisions. Unfortunately all of us are working on our instincts because there's very little evidence one way or the other: it's subjective safety, not proven safety, and telling someone it's their own fault for being injured when they don't follow our rules isn't helping.


----------



## DCBassman (5 Jun 2019)

Great post. Time to close this, methinks.


----------



## MrBeanz (5 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> I have seen many cyclists taking no regard for their personal safety by riding without lights at dusk / after dark, wearing nothing reflective and riding a dark bicycle. So in daylight, of course you are more visible, but if the weather changes? It's not always bright and sunny. It's not always bright and sunny for a whole ride.




Some people can not grasp the concept of riding safely and being considerate to those around you.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Jun 2019)

MrBeanz said:


> Some people can not grasp the concept of riding safely and being considerate to those around you.



Same for driving, walking and pretty much everything in life.


----------



## MrBeanz (5 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Same for driving, walking and pretty much everything in life.




True! I can not argue with that. People are people, walking, running, cycling, driving, working, walking dogs, the list goes on.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (5 Jun 2019)

Markymark said:


> Mange tout



Zut alors!


----------



## mjr (6 Jun 2019)

bladderhead said:


> Hiviz, schmiviz, if the buggers aren't looking they won't see you. They are always telling cyclists they should do this and do that - no. You should pay attention. It is my road as much as it is yours. Organ donation? Some people need some corneas.


I'd prefer them to have licenceëctomies.


----------



## bladderhead (6 Jun 2019)

You think that such an operation would stop them driving? They would be even less bothered about driving carefully.


----------



## mjr (6 Jun 2019)

bladderhead said:


> You think that such an operation would stop them driving? They would be even less bothered about driving carefully.


Also, make it a requirement to have the consent of a licensed driver to tax or insure a motor vehicle. Then many unlicensed drivers will get pinged by ANPR easily and vehicles seized.


----------

