# Cyclists gets a finger wag !



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

To get home on busy nights I some times go around Chiswick Stn , I did so the other night , Kew Bridge was at a standstill so I took the alternatve route , as I went around the corner adjecent to Chiswick Stn , I saw a Police Motor Bike Officer stood by the pavement giving a Lady Cyclist a proper finger wag , and rightly so , no hi vis apparel , no lights , a dark colored bike wearing a long dark coat, the narrowish roads are not to well lit there either , 
More than likely a caution , 
But one hopefully she will adhere to


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

No Hi Vis? Swoon!


----------



## Jimidh (17 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> No Hi Vis? Swoon!


And a dark coloured bike!!


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

Holy Trump! Lets just hope this reckless woman didn't have dark skin too.


----------



## Salty seadog (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> To get home on busy nights I some times go around Chiswick Stn , I did so the other night , Kew Bridge was at a standstill so I took the alternatve route , as I went around the corner adjecent to Chiswick Stn , I saw a Police Motor Bike Officer stood by the pavement giving a Lady Cyclist a proper finger wag , and rightly so , no hi vis apparel , no lights , a dark colored bike wearing a long dark coat, the narrowish roads are not to well lit there either ,
> More than likely a caution ,
> But one hopefully she will adhere to



The only thing wrong is lack of lights if conditions required them. Dark bike, clothes and lack of hi viz, meaningless.


----------



## welsh dragon (17 Jan 2017)

Do people still finger wag these days? Orf with her head. 

You didn't mention a helmet either. 

Maybe she was wearing a dark helmet as well


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

No helmet?! Holy Trump Father of God, this woman needs locking up!


----------



## welsh dragon (17 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> No helmet?! Holy Trump Father of God, this woman needs locking up!




What a p*ss taker....


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

Me, a pish taker? This two wheeled Klaus Barbie needs taking to task before millions more die at her hands!

Top marks to Officer Nuremberg for bringing her reign of slaughter to an end with a wiggle of his mighty law enforcing finger of justice.


----------



## Oxo (17 Jan 2017)

Maybe, @osboz, didn't see the whole incident from the beginning, the lady cyclist might have committed a road traffic offence which resulted in the finger wagging.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> a dark colored bike wearing a long dark coat


Was it cold?


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jan 2017)

Oh dear. My everyday commuting jacket is black and has no hi viz. I hope I don't get a finger wagging.


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

You horrific seal clubbing monster! Have you no shame?


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

I don't understand why people cycle without lights at night - you can pick up those little flashing single LED ones for a couple of quid at the pound-shop; doesn't seem worth the risk does it.

On a related note, if the local police manned the route of my usual commute and stopped every cyclist without lights they'd have to draft in all the force's PCSO's to help too ...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Jan 2017)

Oh no! somebody please think of the children


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)




----------



## twentysix by twentyfive (17 Jan 2017)

I will


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jan 2017)

Well at least all those kids above are wearing Hi-Viz. Apart from the splitters in Grey and Dark Blue.


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

You're not wrong. That's one of the functions of a decent set of lights.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,


You saw her even though she had no hi-viz lights or helmet and was riding a dark bike wearing a black coat.


----------



## Markymark (17 Jan 2017)

Crikey, this debate really should have come up before. It's a real eye opener.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jan 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Oh no! somebody please think of the children


Kids on the bike as well.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> I don't understand why people cycle without lights at night - you can pick up those little flashing single LED ones for a couple of quid at the pound-shop; doesn't seem worth the risk does it.


Do you really not understand, or do you mean you pour scorn on anyone who reaches a different conclusion about the risk than you? While unlit cycling at night is illegal and I agree that spending a pound or two on bobby-dodgers seems worthwhile (so you don't have your time wasted by finger-wagging police, for starters), the legal minimum of 4 candela (yes, 4, not 40 or 400!) flashing lights is not much different to riding unlit (for comparison, car lights are allowed to display 350 candela into the so-called unlit cut-off area of dipped headlights) and unlit cycling is disproportionately UNDER-represented in cycling collisions at something like 2.5% - it seems like much more than 1 in 40 cyclists have no lights, doesn't it?



twentysix by twentyfive said:


> I will


Pervert?



ozboz said:


> Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,


It's OK to think that, but if other road users can't actually see an unlit road user or object in the road, they are not driving/riding legally (=so they can stop within what they can see to be clear) and should be stopped and have any licence taken away.


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You saw her even though she had no hi-viz lights or helmet and was riding a dark bike wearing a black coat.



What I saw first was the Police Officer , who as we know have reflective hi vis , not knowing what was going on I slowed ,then I saw the Lady as I was within yards of them , , a Police Patrol Sarg't once told me , the worst part if his job was informing the families of persons who had been needlessly killed in RTA's , regardless of who was at fault , 
This Officer was doing his job as I see it,


----------



## classic33 (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> It's OK to think that, but if other road users can't actually see an unlit road user or object in the road, they are not driving/riding legally (=so they can stop within what they can see to be clear) and should be stopped and have any licence taken away.


A: Not all road users require a licence to use the roads.
B: Cycling/driving at night on public roads, tends to be illegal.


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Do you really not understand, or do you mean you pour scorn on anyone who reaches a different conclusion about the risk than you? *While unlit cycling at night is illegal *


I don't understand why cyclists wouldn't spend a few pounds to reduce the risk ... of being pulled over by the police; being fined for not having any lights; having no defense if involved in an accident because of being unlit after dark (cycling illegally).


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (17 Jan 2017)

There is no risk of being pulled by the police - the number of motorists I see every day with headlight bulbs out proves that, as does this account of the finger-wagging policeman. Why didn't he stop the cyclist rather than wag his finger?


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

Perhaps we should all just ditch our lights then and cycle around at night unlit? You first ...


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> There is no risk of being pulled by the police - the number of motorists I see every day with headlight bulbs out proves that, as does this account of the finger-wagging policeman. Why didn't he stop the cyclist rather than wag his finger?


He did stop her , 
And was off his M bike ,


----------



## Markymark (17 Jan 2017)

1. Cyclists should have a light to be seen. 
2. Drivers should drive so they don't smash into things, even things without lights by driving at a speed they can stop int he distance they can see.

Police should deal with offenders 1 and 2 in proportion to the danger they pose to themselves and others.
2 kills many per year. 1 kills feckall per year.

2 should have lots of police attention. 1 should have feckall.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> He did stop her ,
> And was off his M bike ,



So he did, my apologies.


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

I agree regarding the policing of bad driving and the danger to others that unlit cyclists pose (or don't), but on the basis that it is illegal to cycle unlit during the hours of darkness why would anyone (especially on a cycling forum) advocate or defend the opposite? Or attempt to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm? Surely the two things are entirely separate?


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

User said:


> No-one is. HTH.


Really?



Markymark said:


> 1. Cyclists should have a light to be seen.
> 2. Drivers should drive so they don't smash into things, even things without lights by driving at a speed they can stop int he distance they can see.
> 
> Police should deal with offenders 1 and 2 in proportion to the danger they pose to themselves and others.
> ...



HTH.


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

User said:


> *Or attempt[ing] to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm".*


Erm, yes it is - have another read ... and:


> Ask a grown up for help with the big words if you're struggling.


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

Bicyclist said:


> Maybe, @osboz, didn't see the whole incident from the beginning, the lady cyclist might have committed a road traffic offence which resulted in the finger wagging.


Quite right , I didnt see the whatever brought the two together, the Officer. could have been there for several other reasons and the lady just happened to ride by ,


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> I don't understand why cyclists wouldn't spend a few pounds to reduce the risk ... of being pulled over by the police; being fined for not having any lights; having no defense if involved in an accident because of being unlit after dark (cycling illegally).


OK, taking that in good faith, here's some possible reasons:

 you seem to be overestimating the risk - maybe they're underestimating it?
 maybe they're the stereotypical hardship case that doesn't have a few pounds to buy them and keep feeding them batteries and replacing them when they fail, as those cheap lights eventually do, with bits going brittle in winter if you keep attach/detaching them - or you can leave them on and take you chance if they get nicked
 maybe their light had failed during the journey (grrr batteries that look fine at first and dim and die quickly once out in the cold) and they decided to chance it getting home rather than freeze their fingers changing batteries because they're sticking to well-lit streets and/or very few people get pulled over for bad lights (see earlier comment about far more deadly motor vehicles driving around unlit)
 maybe they were delayed, didn't expect to be out after dark and didn't have their lights with them and decided to chance it as above
 maybe they actually don't know it's the current law, because of how many other people ride unlit - heck, the police bikes around here aren't legally lit either (torch-like headlights that conform to no standards)
 maybe they decided the risk of attracting undesired attention when they ride through a dodgy part of town was greater than the risk of unlit cycling
 maybe they had lights but had switched them off and were enjoying the beauty of an unlit night (unlikely in the example that started this discussion)



Bimble said:


> I agree regarding the policing of bad driving and the danger to others that unlit cyclists pose (or don't), but on the basis that it is illegal to cycle unlit during the hours of darkness why would anyone (especially on a cycling forum) advocate or defend the opposite?


To be clear, I'm not advocating or defending this illegal behaviour, but I am seeking to explain it based on the research I've done and read over the years. Only by understanding anything can we hope to change it. It's easy to conclude that all unlit cyclists are stupid, but starting from that easy lie means that nothing will change.



Bimble said:


> Or attempt to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm? Surely the two things are entirely separate?


Surely there aren't two entirely separate traffic police forces for cycling and motoring? So every time a relatively-harmless unlit cyclist is stopped, it probably means less time for stopping a much deadlier motorist - I know where I'd prefer the police to focus, West-Midlands-style. Why wouldn't you? What are the people advocating this waste of police time afraid of? What motoring offences do you all routinely commit?


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

I didn't say unlit cyclists were stupid, and understand that some people may have hardship that would make buying cheap lights prohibitively expensive - what I don't understand though is the inclusion of motorists and the apparent stance that if an unlit cyclist is committing an offence and (entirely separately) a driver is also committing an offence - the *cyclist* should be let off / ignored / not stopped or cautioned because they don't pose as big a risk to others as the driver of the vehicle.

If the officer has driven by and seen the woman cycling unlit, then surely, in the absence of any other unlit cyclists or bad driving it is his duty to pull her up and discuss it with her / caution her / fine her, whatever he decides is appropriate - and it is her responsibility to take such a stop into consideration and think about getting some lights fitted to her bike?

Why the hell motorists were dragged into the conversation is beyond me, but justifying cycling illegally on the spurious basis that there are other (more serious) offences that the police could focus on is akin to saying all burglaries should be ignored because, mostly, people aren't hurt in the process.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> what I don't understand though is the inclusion of motorists and the apparent stance that if an unlit cyclist is committing an offence and *(entirely separately)* a driver is also committing an offence - the *cyclist* should be let off / ignored / not stopped or cautioned because they don't pose as big a risk to others as the driver of the vehicle.


It's not entirely separate. If - as in your second hypothetical - there's no offending motorist around, then sure, stop the person on the unlit bike, but if there's an unlit motorist there too, then stop the motorist first. It's like if there's someone juggling a knife next to someone juggling a gun - I want the police to stop the one with the gun first.



Bimble said:


> Why the hell motorists were dragged into the conversation is beyond me,


@ozboz posted this, which suggested that cyclists are somehow responsible for the eyesight of other road users... and as most of the ones that kill are motorists...


ozboz said:


> Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,





Bimble said:


> justifying cycling illegally


Again, no-one is doing that. Please stop attacking Aunt Sallys. It's really rather naughty.


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> a Police Patrol Sarg't once told me , the worst part if his job was informing the families of persons who had been needlessly killed in RTA's , regardless of who was at fault ,
> This Officer was doing his job as I see it,


Mrs Smith, bad news I'm afraid. The Jumbo Jet crashed straight into your husband. Had he been wearing a fluorescent he surely wouldn't have been crushed to death...

What little research has been done into the matter shows no correlation at all between the wearing of 'hi-vis' gear and road safety. If people want to wear it, then i've no problem, all power to them. If people don't want to wear it they're statistically no more likely to come a cropper, and at this time it is a perfectly harmless and lawful activity. that being the case I would sincerely hope our badly stretched police service do not waste their time wagging their fingers at people over the matter of hi visness.

Now bike lights is a different matter, even if only because it's unlawful not to have them at night.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Jan 2017)

What is easier - stopping one cyclist who is breaking the law or 10,000 motorists who one day may not pay enough attention and plough into the aforementioned cyclist? I have no problem with the Police going for an easy stop on the illegal cyclist, but if they stop and try the hi-vis / helmet argument then I think they would be better spending their time elsewhere.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Jan 2017)

Well I for one think the police man should be applauded, even if he did nothing more than stop her to advise her to make herself more visable he did a good thing.
All cyclists and motorists are human, we make mistakes, as cyclists and as motorists, she may have made a mistake and forgot her lights for all we know so a reminder from the police may help prevent that in future. As motorists we all make mistakes too, we dont always spot everything we should, so as a cyclist I take what i consider reasonable steps to give the motorist every chance of seeing me, so 1 solid and 1 flashing light on the rear, and another flashing red hanging from the back of my jacket, a solid and flashing white on front, and a hi viz harness too.
Some seem to suggest we shouldnt take reasonable steps to be seen because its the motorist thats at fault if they dont see us. Not sure that would make anyone feel and better when laying in a hospital bed.


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

As said , I fo not know if he stopped her or she was riding and he saw her , hi vis is not mandatory , but , as I drive along esp in the winter months it does help to identify what is ahead ,and from a good distance when there are reflective bands etc , but , there are also pedestrians to consider, and in my opinion , and experience , M'bike Patrol Officers are not out for an easy catch , they will pull any one for anything ,
Regardless


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> What is easier - stopping one cyclist who is breaking the law or 10,000 motorists who one day may not pay enough attention and plough into the aforementioned cyclist?


False dilemma. There are not 10000 killer motorists going to hit that 1 illegal cyclist.



> I have no problem with the Police going for an easy stop on the illegal cyclist, but if they stop and try the hi-vis / helmet argument then I think they would be better spending their time elsewhere.


They do and they would but evidence-led traffic policing is disappointingly rare... and probably wouldn't have public support, given that it seems from this discussion that even many cyclists want police to focus on relatively harmless infractions instead of dangerous motoring ones.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> as a cyclist I take what i consider reasonable steps to give the motorist every chance of seeing me, so 1 solid and 1 flashing light on the rear, and another flashing red hanging from the back of my jacket, a solid and flashing white on front, and a hi viz harness too.
> Some seem to suggest we shouldnt take reasonable steps to be seen because its the motorist thats at fault if they dont see us. Not sure that would make anyone feel and better when laying in a hospital bed.


I would rather suggest that your steps are unreasonable and probably mistaken. You seem to focus on number of lights but make no mention whether any are actually legally sufficient and complying with UK or German standards.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (17 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> I don't understand why people cycle without lights at night - you can pick up those little flashing single LED ones for a couple of quid at the pound-shop; doesn't seem worth the risk does it.
> ...



Haud the bus! Stuff from £1 shops now costs £2??? Is this a Brexit thing?


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

swl said:


> Haud the bus! Stuff from £1 shops now costs £2??? Is this a Brexit thing?


It's magic - you'll like this, not a lot, but you'll like it --- Front light = £1 - rear light = £1 --- total £2


----------



## classic33 (17 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> It's magic - you'll like this, not a lot, but you'll like it --- Front light = £1 - rear light = £1 --- total £2


You forgot the batteries!

Poundworld, set for £1. Batteries from Poundland, 16 for £1.


----------



## Markymark (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> as I drive along esp in the winter months *it does help to identify what is ahead *,and from a good distance when there are reflective bands etc , but , *there are also pedestrians to consider*,


Gosh, you are right. Lights for pedestrians, it's common sense.


----------



## Bimble (17 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> Gosh, you are right. Lights for pedestrians, it's common sense.


... and helmets too ...  - *ONLY JOKING* please don't flame me (_I've already had my fingers burnt_)


----------



## Big Andy (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> I would rather suggest that your steps are unreasonable and probably mistaken. You seem to focus on number of lights but make no mention whether any are actually legally sufficient and complying with UK or German standards.


I focus on being easily seen and am confident I am. However you are free to consider that unreasonable if you wish.


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> Gosh, you are right. Lights for pedestrians, it's common sense.


 The Rural area where my Brother lives , yes ,some pedestrians do carry lights ,snd wesr hi vis , good common sense in areas where there is no street lighting, , I would have thought. 

Maybe I should have spelt out that pedestrians in poorly lit areas can only benefit from bike riders having lights , to avoid being bashed into as they cross the road, or infact to escape the pavement bashing cyclists , 
So due consideration ,


----------



## Markymark (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> The Rural area where my Brother lives , yes ,some pedestrians do carry lights ,snd wesr hi vis , good common sense in areas where there is no street lighting


Absolutely. And I do hope the local PCs give then a good finger wagging if they're out and about without it.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> The Rural area where my Brother lives , yes ,some pedestrians do carry lights ,snd wesr hi vis , good common sense in areas where there is no street lighting, , I would have thought.


We carry lights to see where we're going, not for the benefit of other road users who should have their own lights. (My street is lit but most of the adjacent ones are not.)


----------



## ozboz (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> We carry lights to see where we're going, not for the benefit of other road users who should have their own lights. (My street is lit but most of the adjacent ones are not.)



Other road users , does that include cyclists ?


----------



## winjim (17 Jan 2017)

I have a wonderful hi-vis anecdote which I must tell you all one day. It does involve a finger wagging.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> Other road users , does that include cyclists ?


Of course. :?:



winjim said:


> I have a wonderful hi-vis anecdote which I must tell you all one day. It does involve a finger wagging.


After being cut off by a hi-vis vest, lamb's-tail-style?


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> False dilemma. There are not 10000 killer motorists going to hit that 1 illegal cyclist.



How exactly is Mr Plod going to pick out the one or two inattentive drivers out if the 1000?


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> We carry lights to see where we're going, not for the benefit of other road users who should have their own lights. (My street is lit but most of the adjacent ones are not.)



Why do you have a back light then? I use lights to see and to be seen.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Why do you have a back light then? I use lights to see and to be seen.


Because I'm legally required to, but I agree with CTC's 1930s opposition to them. It's absurd to think you can make yourself "be seen" and one suggested reason for the disproportionately small number of unlit cyclist collisions is that they assume others HAVEN'T seen them.

Edit: I don't carry a back light when walking, though. My walking lantern is white 360°.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> To get home on busy nights I some times go around Chiswick Stn , I did so the other night , Kew Bridge was at a standstill so I took the alternatve route , as I went around the corner adjecent to Chiswick Stn , I saw a Police Motor Bike Officer stood by the pavement giving a Lady Cyclist a proper finger wag , and rightly so , no hi vis apparel , no lights , a dark colored bike wearing a long dark coat, the narrowish roads are not to well lit there either ,
> More than likely a caution ,
> But one hopefully she will adhere to


Hi Vis doth offend mine eye.

Amazing Mr Plod could even see her really, when you think about it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

ozboz said:


> Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,


If they aren't looking, et cetera, et cetera.
If they are looking, etc., etc..


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> Gosh, you are right. Lights for pedestrians, it's common sense.


Trees. The trees need to be lit. Cars are always hitting them.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> It's absurd to think you can make yourself "be seen"


I agree.
Its as absurd as thinking you cannot increase the chances of being seen.


----------



## potsy (17 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Trees. The trees need to be lit. Cars are always hitting them.


One round here hit a house this morning, what chance has a cyclist got, lit or unlit? 

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/01/woman-injured-after-car-smashes-into-house-in-ashton/


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2017)

potsy said:


> One round here hit a house this morning, what chance has a cyclist got, lit or unlit?
> 
> https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/01/woman-injured-after-car-smashes-into-house-in-ashton/


Bloody cars. They should be made to carry human controllers to stop them doing such evil acts.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Jan 2017)

My bike has good lights, I wear reflectives (not hi-viz) in twilight and darkness, still I'm not confident all drivers will notice me.
Sometimes I feel they see me but don't register.
Anyway, what about all those on here that had plenty of lights, still got hit?
I think being highly visible on a bike is very desirable but not a guarantee of safety.
There are plenty of unlit cyclists on the paths I commute on: after the first couple that took me unaware, now I actively watch out for them.
Of course, that results in me riding slower and paying more attention.
Having been pulled by the police for not wearing hi-viz and helmet on a segregated path in broad daylight - my bright red jacket, shocking pink hat did not count because "ah, but the drivers" won't see you - I feel the police has the same mentality as the drivers, that is cyclists must go the extra mile not to be hit.
It should be drivers must go the extra mile not to squash anybody!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> I agree.
> Its as absurd as thinking you cannot increase the chances of being seen.


The drivers who are looking will see you.
The drivers who aren't won't.
Nothing you do will change that.


----------



## steve50 (17 Jan 2017)

Couldn't find one with cyclists on but the principal is the same


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

potsy said:


> One round here hit a house this morning, what chance has a cyclist got, lit or unlit?
> 
> https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/01/woman-injured-after-car-smashes-into-house-in-ashton/


and look at sign posts and lamp posts...

...cars never hit them.

Oh. Hang on.






posted this morning by Sussex Police....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Couldn't find one with cyclists on but the principal is the same
> 
> View attachment 333802


I can see two horses. Is there a third one?


----------



## steve50 (17 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I can see two horses. Is there a third one?


Yeah, there's two horses and one of them is damn site more visible than the other , Fact!!
Imo if you are wearing some sort of reflective material or high viz it increases your chances of being seen from a greater distance ie; by a car approaching from behind you. You are more visible as per the horse and rider pictured.


----------



## Big Andy (17 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The drivers who are looking will see you.
> The drivers who aren't won't.
> Nothing you do will change that.


I disagree. A light flash or a reflection seen in our peripheral vision can draw attention that otherwise would not be drawn. Taking those sensible steps will increase the chances of you being seen.


----------



## Slick (17 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Yeah, there's two horses and one of them is damn site more visible than the other , Fact!!
> Imo if you are wearing some sort of reflective material or high viz it increases your chances of being seen from a greater distance ie; by a car approaching from behind you. You are more visible as per the horse and rider pictured.


I only saw 1 on first glance. I didn't realise there were 2 until @GrumpyGregry posted his comment.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Jan 2017)

I


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You saw her even though she had no hi-viz lights or helmet and was riding a dark bike wearing a black coat.


Christ,not that old argument again!


----------



## steve50 (17 Jan 2017)

Slick said:


> *I only saw 1 on first glance. I didn't realise there were 2 *until @GrumpyGregry posted his commitment.



Exactly my point, hi viz gear or tape or whatever form it comes in was invented to increase the visibility of the wearer, however this is cycle chat where you will always get the pedants who are so stuck in their ways they will argue black is white rather than admit that high viz and other protective gear may help prevent an incident.


----------



## stephec (17 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Me, a pish taker? This two wheeled Klaus Barbie needs taking to task before millions more die at her hands!
> 
> Top marks to Officer Nuremberg for bringing her reign of slaughter to an end with a wiggle of his mighty law enforcing finger of justice.


I bet there's a few villains who felt the full force of your finger?


----------



## steve50 (17 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> and look at sign posts and lamp posts...
> 
> ...cars never hit them.
> 
> ...


and how do you know they hadn't skidded on a diesel spill or black ice or had a blow out or any other scenario that might have caused the incident?????????
Your example is pointless are you going to quote "irony"


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Couldn't find one with cyclists on but the principal is the same
> 
> View attachment 333802



I'm sure the principal is wonderful. Nevertheless, the principle does not translate into lower casualty rates. Therefore, the principle is a pointless one.


----------



## steve50 (17 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> I'm sure the principal is wonderful. *Nevertheless, the principle does not translate into lower casualty rates*. Therefore, the principle is a pointless one.


figures to back that up???


----------



## Tim Hall (17 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> I disagree. A light flash or a reflection seen in our peripheral vision can draw attention that otherwise would not be drawn. Taking those sensible steps will increase the chances of you being seen.


It did the square root of cock all the two times (in many years) I've been clouted off my bike. The first time, Mr. twatty driver admitted he hadn't cleared his misted up window. I got a free ride on his bonnet. He got 3(?) points and a £120 fine. I was using a GBFO Cateye battery powered front light and was wearing a yellow waterproof. The second time, Mrs. twatty driver did I don't know what. I was using a bright handlebar mounted LED torch and was wearing a black waterproof. I got a night in hospital, stitches, concussion, broken bike. I did get my hand held by a nice Scottish nurse. The police too no further action. Their version of what constitutes "far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" is different to mine.


----------



## Drago (17 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> figures to back that up???


 Please do, show us the figures that demonstrate a tangible safety benefit please. We'll just wait here while you fetch them.


----------



## Tim Hall (17 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I can see two horses. Is there a third one?


I think with horses, it's the rider on the pale one you need to look out for.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Jan 2017)




----------



## Tim Hall (17 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> View attachment 333805


Crappy victim blaming rubbish.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> I'm sure the principal is wonderful. * Nevertheless, the principle does not translate into lower casualty rates. *Therefore, the principle is a pointless one.





Drago said:


> Please do, show us the figures that demonstrate a tangible safety benefit please. We'll just wait here while you fetch them.


no more than i should have expected really, you made the claim in the first quote so i asked YOU to back up your claim but you turn it back on me??
Where did I say the casualty rate would be reduced by wearing high viz?
What I did say was you are more visible wearing some kind of reflective gear, I never claimed safety facts or figures.

We will just sit here and wait for you to back up your claim shall we.........


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> I think with horses, it's the rider on the pale one you need to look out for.


You think........really?
Would you like to enlighten us with your thoughts?


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Crappy victim blaming rubbish.


Then lessen your chances of becoming a victim by wearing something that makes you more visible.


----------



## Tim Hall (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> You think........really?
> Would you like to enlighten us with your thoughts?


Umm, explaining the joke tends to spoil it, but anyway:


> And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Then lessen your chances of becoming a victim by wearing something that makes you more visible.


Prove wearing fugly clothes lessens your chances.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Jan 2017)

Typical bad driving heading sideways off the road into that poor horse rider. Was that before he hit the driving carefully sign?


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> It did the square root of cock all the two times (in many years) I've been clouted off my bike. The first time, Mr. twatty driver admitted he hadn't cleared his misted up window. I got a free ride on his bonnet. He got 3(?) points and a £120 fine. I was using a GBFO Cateye battery powered front light and was wearing a yellow waterproof. The second time, Mrs. twatty driver did I don't know what. I was using a bright handlebar mounted LED torch and was wearing a black waterproof. I got a night in hospital, stitches, concussion, broken bike. I did get my hand held by a nice Scottish nurse. The police too no further action. Their version of what constitutes "far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" is different to mine.


Nobody is claiming making yourself more visible will prevent all incidents.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Exactly my point, hi viz gear or tape or whatever form it comes in was invented to increase the visibility of the wearer,* however this is cycle chat where you will always get the pedants who are so stuck in their ways they will argue black is white rather than admit that high viz and other protective gear may help prevent an incident*.


----------



## winjim (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> no more than i should have expected really, you made the claim in the first quote so i asked YOU to back up your claim but you turn it back on me??
> Where did I say the casualty rate would be reduced by wearing high viz?
> What I did say was you are more visible wearing some kind of reflective gear, I never claimed safety facts or figures.
> 
> We will just sit here and wait for you to back up your claim shall we.........


So what would you say is the benefit of increased visibility, if not safety?


----------



## Sandra6 (18 Jan 2017)

welsh dragon said:


> Do people still finger wag these days? Orf with her head.
> 
> You didn't mention a helmet either.
> 
> Maybe she was wearing a dark helmet as well


I wag my finger at people when I'm telling them off, makes me feel important :-) I'm not sure why, but they dont' seem to take me seriously. oh well. 



Bimble said:


> Perhaps we should all just ditch our lights then and cycle around at night unlit? You first ...


I went out the other morning without a front light, it wasn't actually dark, but a bit grey. I felt really vulnerable. AND a car pulled out at me, although to be fair I was side on to her so she wouldn't have seen my light even if it had been there. A kindly passer by pointed out I didn't have a light at the front. 



swl said:


> Haud the bus! Stuff from £1 shops now costs £2??? Is this a Brexit thing?


My youngest calls poundland "the any price shop" because of their huge range of prices, they even have things for a tenner in there now! The world's gone mad I tell you! 
I'm off out in my black jacket, but it's ok cos my bike is mostly white!


----------



## welsh dragon (18 Jan 2017)

Sandra6 said:


> I wag my finger at people when I'm telling them off, makes me feel important :-) I'm not sure why, but they dont' seem to take me seriously. oh well.
> 
> 
> I went out the other morning without a front light, it wasn't actually dark, but a bit grey. I felt really vulnerable. AND a car pulled out at me, although to be fair I was side on to her so she wouldn't have seen my light even if it had been there. A kindly passer by pointed out I didn't have a light at the front.
> ...




The trouble with jo bloggs wagging his/her finger at someone these days is, you could end up being punched in the face or worse.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Exactly my point, hi viz gear or tape or whatever form it comes in was invented to increase the visibility of the wearer, however this is cycle chat where you will always get the pedants who are so stuck in their ways they will argue black is white rather than admit that high viz and other protective gear may help prevent an incident.


Wow, so good you quoted yourself huh?
The thing is that if you look at the OP as an example or reports of cyclists getting knocked off you will see various combinations of the following;

They had no lights
They didn't have enough lights
The lights weren't bright enough
They were wearing a dark coat
They should have been wearing hi viz
They should have been wearing more hi viz
They should have been wearing reflectives
They should have been wearing more reflectives
They weren't wearing a helmet
They were riding a Brompton
They were riding in the middle of the road
They weren't on the cycle path
They were two abreast

I'm sure you get the idea.
Now I think that it's not unreasonable for cyclists to take steps with seeing and being seen, but I also think that somewhere between stealth mode and Christmas tree we should be able to say, "Hang on, you do need to help us out by at least looking you know." However the fact is that is not what we have, no matter how many precautions you take currently in the event of an incident it wouldn't be enough. Rather than calling people pedants you should be looking at what's being said and realise that you're arguing for the continuation of the visibilty arms race which we will never win, when maybe you should be arguing for motorists to take at least some responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

Sandra6 said:


> I felt really vulnerable. AND a car pulled out at me, although to be fair I was side on to her so she wouldn't have seen my light even if it had been there


I'm sorry if I have this wrong but it _sounds _as if you're suggesting that it wasn't really the motorists fault that they pulled out on you.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> Wow, so good you quoted yourself huh?
> The thing is that if you look at the OP as an example or reports of cyclists getting knocked off you will see various examples of the following;
> 
> They had no lights
> ...


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> Wow, so good you quoted yourself huh?
> The thing is that if you look at the OP as an example or reports of cyclists getting knocked off you will see various examples of the following;
> 
> They had no lights
> ...



I absolutely agree with you, what irks me is the number of "pedants" who will blindly argue that it is the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless of any given circumstance.
Today it is very overcast dull and grey outside, even a little misty over the hills, I am about to go out on my bike, given the conditions I am going to wear a brightly coloured jacket in an effort to make myself visible against a rather murky background. My idea is to make myself more visible to other road users, it might not stop someone from knocking me off my bike but I would hope the brighter colour would attract the attention of vehicle drivers. I also agree that motorists should take more responsibility for their actions, I have discussed this in the past, I am also a motorist, I have been a biker many moons ago so I am more aware of bikes / motorbikes than a motorist who has never ridden a bike.


----------



## Lonestar (18 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4641501, member: 9609"]hopefully the lady cyclist was well versed in the CC mantra of 'it is up to the motorists to use their lights and stop playing with their phones' and told the officer so whilst wagging her finger.[/QUOTE]

Use their indicators and stop surfing the internet or texting while driving,you mean.


----------



## stephec (18 Jan 2017)

welsh dragon said:


> The trouble with jo bloggs wagging his/her finger at someone these days is, you could end up being punched in the face or worse.


Don't judge everyone by your own standards.


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

Lonestar said:


> Use their indicators and *stop surfing the internet or texting while driving*,you mean.


Now _there's_ an issue I would be happy to see policed instead of unlit cyclists! 

But - and I don't know if it's a funding issue or change of focus onto other more "serious" crimes - over the past decade or more there has been a distinct reduction in traffic police presence in our city, to the point where you'd actually be quite unlucky if you got caught using your phone whilst driving. The bitter irony, of course, is that almost every phone sold in the past 5 years or more can do hands-free calls.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Sandra6 said:


> AND a car pulled out at me, although to be fair I was side on to her so she wouldn't have seen my light even if it had been there.


Proper bike lights have to be visible from the sides, which is an oft-overlooked benefit of standards-compliant lights. It's a shame the UK bicycle chain stores rarely sell any.



> I'm off out in my black jacket, but it's ok cos my bike is mostly white!


 My usual bike has the rear quarter of its rear mudguard white but I bet many of the nerks telling us to dress like alien space lemons haven't done that.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Do you know, I drive and cycle a lot round the country lanes around here - and I've never hit a horse.
> 
> Maybe its because I drive with due care and attention, at a speed that is suitable to the conditions and at which I feel able to stop if needed.



Great, good for you, now if all motorists gave the same consideration to all road users we would all be a lot safer when using the roads, I shall now remove my rose tinted glasses


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> I absolutely agree with you, what irks me is the number of "pedants" who will blindly argue that it is the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless of any given circumstance.


What irks me is the likes of you arguing with figments of your imagination! *No-one* here is arguing that it is "the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless". Some may argue that it should be, but that's not the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that cyclists shouldn't comply with the spirit of the law on visibility.

However, the nobbers who are going far beyond that, telling others to use many many extra lights and wear the modern reflective Yellow Star Jacket and saying that cyclists are somehow responsible for being seen, saying that you can "increase your visibility" (no, you're either visible or invisible - you may be able to make it so you're visible from further away, but there's no evidence doing more than the legal minimum helps), saying that it will reduce incidents or injuries or anything like that...  Those cyclists are part of the problem, well-meaning sadists who are handing ready-made excuses to incompetent motorists and helping to sour the public against other law-abiding cyclists. If someone is legally lit and reflective, then shut up.

Often, one irony is that some of those who help excuse incompetent motoring and advocate ugly "safety" clothing are riding bikes that aren't even legally lit and reflectored... not just a technical failure to meet the letter of the law by using substandard lights, but a failure to meet its spirit by displaying flashing green lights or not displaying amber pedal reflectors (I can't see them on the bike in @steve50's avatar...) often because  pedal reflectors for their clip system are too expensive or look ugly in their opinion.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Do you know, I drive and cycle a lot round the country lanes around here - and I've never hit a horse.
> 
> Maybe its because I drive with due care and attention, at a speed that is suitable to the conditions and at which I feel able to stop if needed.


The only thing I hit when I drive around country lanes is 100. Only joking, my iPad usually covers the dashboard so I've no real idea how fast I'm going.

Cyclists should wear bright clothes to make it easier for drivers. Then so should pedestrians. I do hope all those arguing make sure they wear bright clothes when out for a walk after dusk and expect to feel the long finger of the law if they don't. I mean it's just common sense and why wouldn't you try as hard as you can to be seen when out for a walk?


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> I am going to wear a brightly coloured jacket in an effort to make myself visible against a rather murky background. My idea is to make myself more visible to other road users, it might not stop someone from knocking me off my bike but I would hope the brighter colour would attract the attention of vehicle drivers.


And this is where the problems start. Your wearing of a bright jacket should not be the difference between getting knocked off or not. Also if you don't get knocked off because you have worn a bright jacket it does not make it ok that I do get knocked off because I've worn a black jacket. Yet the argument both here amongst cyclists and out on the road is that somehow it was my fault because_ I _should have done more.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> View attachment 333805



Hi-vis markings, stationary, flashing red & blue strobes, unlit road; and a driver still managed to slam his National Express coach into it and shove it 80 metres (262 feet!) along the road. If a driver isn't looking, he won't see you no matter how illuminated you are.


Oh, and the police dog in the back was only slightly injured.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> Cyclists should wear bright clothes to make it easier for drivers. Then so should pedestrians. I do hope all those arguing make sure they wear bright clothes when out for a walk after dusk and expect to feel the long finger of the law if they don't. I mean it's just common sense and why wouldn't you try as hard as you can to be seen when out for a walk?


You couldn't be more right if you tried.






Walking along the pavement minding your own business? Make sure you're wearing reflectives, cos if you get mown down it's clearly your own fault.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jan 2017)

View: https://youtu.be/eiRBft4YpVU


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> Walking along the pavement minding your own business? Make sure you're wearing reflectives, cos if you get mown down it's clearly your own fault.


The Be Seen BS is one of a number of evidence-free parts of the Highway Code that Cyclenation groups and CTC objected to, but were overruled. Also, based on the point of view, the example motorist seems to be driving directly at them.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Also, based on the point of view, the example motorist seems to be driving directly at them.


I assume he wants to mount the kerb so he doesn't have to walk so far to the shop, in a situation like that I think it's only right and proper that peds that are in the way ensure that they are clearly visible, they should be carrying a torch really.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> That whooshing sound is the point going over your head...


and that "whoosh" is the best you can come up with!!



mjr said:


> What irks me is the likes of you arguing with figments of your imagination!
> *Bollox!*
> 
> *No-one* here is arguing that it is "the sole responsibility of the motorist to see the cyclist regardless". Some may argue that it should be, but that's not the same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that cyclists shouldn't comply with the spirit of the law on visibility.
> ...


*My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than make up for the missing pedal reflectors.*


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> and that "whoosh" is the best you can come up with!!
> 
> 
> My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than *make up for the missing pedal reflectors*.


Or in other words 'riding illegally'


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

Outside of the basic legal requirements for vehicles and cycles (I don't think there are any for pedestrians are there?) - it's not really evidence based stuff is it, it's more of an "it makes reasonable sense to wear reflective gear so let's tell people to do that" approach. Which, over time, seems to have turned into "the message" that you _should_ be more responsible and do more than the basic requirements, such as wear hi-viz, have really bright lights, wear a helmet, etc.; to protect yourself and/or make it easier for others to spot you.

As far as I'm aware the opposite has not been (or cannot be) proved that _without_ these extra measures we are _more_ likely to be involved in an accident / incident / whatever the current word is for being injured or killed by a motorist (sorry, "vehicle"). But if that _was_ the case, wouldn't you expect to see unlit, dark clothed cyclists mown down in the gutters all the way home on the commute.

I think that any extra measures an individual wants to take should be their choice and they shouldn't be criticised for it, but agree that foisting the responsibility on all cyclists to _have_ do extra things (and making them out to be less responsible if they don't) is very unhealthy.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

potsy said:


> Or in other words 'riding illegally'



Rubbish!!


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Rubbish!!


In a similar way to those that have red lights on their helmet and jacket but none attached to the bike?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Rubbish!!



Sorry, there's no argument that pedal reflectors are a legal requirement for riding at night.

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


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

potsy said:


> In a similar way to those that have red lights on their helmet and jacket but none attached to the bike?



The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and its subsequent amendments, cyclists must have a white front light[1] and red rear lights lit at night,[2] have their cycle fitted with a red light reflector on the rear
The first thing that must be noted is that these legal requirements should be regarded as a minimum expectation rather than an ideal. Generally speaking, there are no requirements for any ‘extra’ lights that are on a pedal bike – they are not subject to the finer details of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 such as the size, positioning and manufacturing standard and therefore generally encouraged. For that reason, any additional equipment such as lights or high-visibility clothing is always a good thing and recommended in order to improve the visibility and safety of cyclists. There are two things in particular we will cover in this article; lights attached to the cyclist rather than the cycle itself and lights known as ‘monkey lights’.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Sorry, there's no argument that pedal reflectors are a legal requirement for riding at night.
> 
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations



Fair enough , I stand corrected on that point .


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> *My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than make up for the missing pedal reflectors.*


Write it in blue (I think) and bold all you like, but "missing pedal reflectors" means you don't "have the required reflectors" and you're riding illegally at night. Why won't you take this reasonable minor step to ride legally? I don't see why law-abiding cyclists should take advice on visibility from someone who knowingly rides illegally.

I doubt you always wear overshoes and if you only cycle when wearing reflective tights, that must rather limit riding opportunities and is rather different to most people who ride bikes, especially for transport.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Write it in blue (I think) and bold all you like, but "missing pedal reflectors" means you don't "have the required reflectors" and you're riding illegally. Why won't you take this reasonable minor step to ride legally? I don't see why law-abiding cyclists should take advice on visibility from someone who knowingly rides illegally.



If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Fair enough , I stand corrected on that point .



Depends how old your bike is. Bikes manufactured before 1985 don't require pedal reflectors. Now why do you think that is?


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> *If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.*
> I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.


Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
> I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.


 Fine! Well, your point of view and a quid fifty will get you a good coffee, but I think it would be better if you stopped trying to teach your grandmothers to suck eggs! There's quite a lot of us who have ridden in the dark for decades (I remember riding home from school, peering for the verge in the dim glow of never-readies) mostly without incident (but the comments from those knocked down while lit up like Christmas trees are also interesting IMO) and have often tried a few of the Be Seen BS products before realising the vast majority are useless snake oil which the Highway Cod should not be recommending.


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
> I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.


So why do you have so much reflective gear?


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?


He doesn't ride after dark = no lights are required by law = he has no lights?


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?


Because I use my lights when I am cycling. Even in daylight.



mjr said:


> Fine! Well, your point of view and a quid fifty will get you a good coffee, but I think it would be better if you stopped trying to teach your grandmothers to suck eggs! There's quite a lot of us who have ridden in the dark for decades (I remember riding home from school, peering for the verge in the dim glow of never-readies) mostly without incident (but the comments from those knocked down while lit up like Christmas trees are also interesting IMO) and have often tried a few of the Be Seen BS products before realising the vast majority are useless snake oil which the Highway Cod should not be recommending.



and that is your point of view to which you are entitled.
We have a difference of opinion, it does not mean you are right anymore than I am, each to their own as they say.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> He doesn't ride after dark = no lights are required by law = he has no lights?



Do keep up!!


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

potsy said:


> So why do you have so much reflective gear?



Another one that needs to keep up.
I believe I have covered that many posts ago.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Depends how old your bike is. Bikes manufactured before 1985 don't require pedal reflectors. Now why do you think that is?


The lighting law is delegated to regulations so I'm not sure it passed through parliament. The current regulations reenacted the 1984 ones with modifications but pedal reflectors weren't modified. The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download... do you know why a presumably-new requirement wasn't applied to older bikes?

While searching, I did notice pedal reflectors were illegal for a brief time in the 1950s due to a slip-up drafting a law: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1957-11-26a.993.0#g993.1



steve50 said:


> Because I use my lights when I am cycling. Even in daylight.


Why do you want to reduce the relative conspicuity of other lawful unlit road users like that? Bit selfish, innit?



steve50 said:


> and that is your point of view to which you are entitled.
> We have a difference of opinion, it does not mean you are right anymore than I am, each to their own as they say.


No, the difference of opinion doesn't make you wrong - it's repeating unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate that makes you wrong.


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Another one that needs to keep up.
> I believe I have covered that many posts ago.


Really?

So you wear reflectives even when there is no light to be reflected from it?


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> No, the difference of opinion doesn't make you wrong - *it's repeating unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate that makes you wrong.*


That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download...


The notes to the 1984 regulations don't explain the pre-1985 exception either. I suspect the explanation may be in some government consultation response of the time, but 30-year-old consultation responses aren't online.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> The lighting law is delegated to regulations so I'm not sure it passed through parliament. The current regulations reenacted the 1984 ones with modifications but pedal reflectors weren't modified. The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download... do you know why a presumably-new requirement wasn't applied to older bikes?
> 
> While searching, I did notice pedal reflectors were illegal for a brief time in the 1950s due to a slip-up drafting a law: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1957-11-26a.993.0#g993.1
> 
> ...


Where am I repeating "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate" (your own opinion), I have put forward my own views on wearing hi viz or reflective tape on my cycling gear, it is MY view not anyone else, if that does not meet with your chosen view or opinions then tough, as I have already said it does not make me anymore wrong than you.



potsy said:


> Really?
> 
> So you wear reflectives even when there is no light to be reflected from it?



Yes, don't you get it, the reflectives are sewn into my jerseys and jackets and tights etc, I do what I think is required to get myself noticed when out on my bike, it is my choice, my view, my opinion. You don't have to like it.........honest.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.


I agree that the comment you referred to was too strong, however it is I think worth considering the effect that Steve using daylight running lights and bright clothing etc has on the perception of what should be the accepted norm for all cyclists, if the effect he is having on that perception is to create an expectation that cyclists should by default run lights in the day and wear bright clothing then it's not ok.


----------



## Salty seadog (18 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I can see two horses. Is there a third one?



Yes but it's not got lights on...


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Yes, don't you get it, the reflectives are sewn into my jerseys and jackets and tights etc, I do what I think is required to get myself noticed when out on my bike, it is my choice, my view, my opinion. You don't have to like it.........honest.


Oh, so it's just a fashion thing, why didn't you say so?


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.


Is it a bit strong? Any time a cyclist is hurt by a motorist, it seems like even other cyclists will critiicse the cyclist for going too fast, going too slow, not wearing their pet fetish clothing, wearing too much disliked clothing, not wearing a helmet, wearing a helmet and so on. I'm sick of it, especially when it appear the critic doesn't even do the legal minimum for the situation the cyclist is hurt in and does some things that seem like beggar-thy-neighbour moves like using Daytime Running Lights!



steve50 said:


> Where am I repeating "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"





steve50 said:


> Couldn't find one with cyclists on but the principal is the same
> 
> View attachment 333802





steve50 said:


> Yeah, there's two horses and one of them is damn site more visible than the other , Fact!!
> Imo if you are wearing some sort of reflective material or high viz it increases your chances of being seen from a greater distance ie; by a car approaching from behind you. You are more visible as per the horse and rider pictured.





steve50 said:


> hi viz gear or tape or whatever form it comes in was invented to increase the visibility of the wearer





steve50 said:


> high viz and other protective gear may help prevent an incident.





steve50 said:


> I am going to wear a brightly coloured jacket in an effort to make myself visible


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> I agree that the comment you referred to was too strong, however it is I think worth considering the effect that Steve using daylight running lights and bright clothing etc has on the perception of what should be the accepted norm for all cyclists, if the effect he is having on that perception is to create an expectation that cyclists should by default run lights in the day and wear bright clothing then it's not ok.



As I have already stated it is my personal choice, what anyone else chooses to do is up to themselves.
Personally i do think drl's are a good thing as , so it would appear, do car manufacturers.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Personally i do think drl's are a good thing as , so it would appear, do car manufacturers.


I understand that car manufacturers don't have the choice any more because your fellow fools at the United Nations working group that sets vehicle regulations have compelled manufacturers to fit DRLs to new car models else they won't get approved for road use in most of the world.

I worked out how to deactivate the ones on my black car.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Is it a bit strong? Any time a cyclist is hurt by a motorist, it seems like even other cyclists will critiicse the cyclist for going too fast, going too slow, not wearing their pet fetish clothing, wearing too much disliked clothing, not wearing a helmet, wearing a helmet and so on. I'm sick of it, especially when it appear the critic doesn't even do the legal minimum for the situation the cyclist is hurt in and does some things that seem like beggar-thy-neighbour moves like using Daytime Running Lights!




All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"
Jeeze your like a dog with a bloody bone, as I have stated above........it is MY View, my choice, my opinion, I can't make it any clearer than that. What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> I understand that car manufacturers don't have the choice any more because* your fellow fools *at the United Nations working group that sets vehicle regulations have compelled manufacturers to fit DRLs to new car models else they won't get approved for road use in most of the world.
> 
> *I worked out how to deactivate the ones on my black car*.



I hope you are never involved in an rta then as your insurance company would take a very dim view of that.
And I am nobodys fool thank you.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"


And it's not like your views can't be unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate?



steve50 said:


> What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.


So why do you keep posting Be Seen BS?


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

@steve50 I think @mjr is coming from the point of view that people who *insist *cyclists _should_ wear hi-viz means that cyclists are somewhat abdicating the motorists duty of care to keep a proper look out for you - which drivers / operators should do _regardless_ of what cyclists are wearing.

It's an interesting thought, and is somewhat akin to the perception by some that a cycling helmet _should _be a required modern-day cycling "safety" device worn by everyone, as the popularity of marketing them has increased (I know helmets are to discussed elsewhere - I just mention them as a similar parallel with hi-viz).

Thankfully, in the UK at least, we still have a choice regarding all of the "extra" measures we can take with regards to our safety (or perception of it) - but the danger is ever present that if enough people (not necessarily cyclists) shout loud enough about it, we could end up being required to adopt it.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"
> Jeeze your like a dog with a bloody bone, as I have stated above........it is MY View, my choice, my opinion, I can't make it any clearer than that. What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.


So should the police be dealing with people who don't dress according to your views or should it, you know, be up to the person?


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> I hope you are never involved in an rta then as your insurance company would take a very dim view of that.


Why do you think that? I checked with my motor insurer that they do not require DRLs (amongst other things), like I checked that my bike insurer doesn't require Sold Secure or impose a ban on rail station cycle parking or anything like that, but I also hope I'm never involved in a collision with another vehicle. I hit a few inanimate objects when I was first driving, but I doubt a concrete pillar would have gotten out of the way if I had lights on!


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> And it's not like your views can't be unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate?
> 
> 
> So why do you keep posting Be Seen BS?



Don't you get it yet?????
It is my opinion, my bloody choice fgs.



Markymark said:


> So should the police be dealing with people who don't dress according to your views or should it, you know, be up to the person?



I've already stated it is up to the individual what they want to wear riding their own bike, they can ride it butt naked for all I care.....is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> they can ride it butt naked for all I care.....


No, please, not that - besides, where would you attach the lights? 

I reckon you _would_ get stopped for that though.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Don't you get it yet?????
> It is my opinion, my bloody choice fgs.
> 
> 
> ...


Cool. So in answer to the op the police shouldn't have been wasting their time. Quite a few people agree with you as this is what we were saying for the first few pages. . Glad it's cleared up.


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

Got it - guy at the back - hi-viz undies ... now there's a thing that might catch on:


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If a driver isn't looking, he won't see you no matter how illuminated you are.



If a driver is looking, he still might not see you if you're dressed in black or other dark clothing. If he/she is looking you have a better chance of being seen in high viz.That goes for pedestrians as well


----------



## martint235 (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> If a driver is looking, he still might not see you if you're dressed in black or other dark clothing. If he/she is looking you have a better chance of being seen in high viz.That goes for pedestrians as well


If a driver is looking and doesn't see the two Hope 1s at the front or the two bright lights at the back then what I'm wearing won't make the slightest difference to whether he hits me or not.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> I remember riding home from school, peering for the verge in the dim glow of never-readies


They don't make 'em like they used to.




I got stopped by a copper whilst riding home one night as I didn't have my front light on, the problem was that the battery (which I had probably put in brand new about 15 minutes beforehand) was virtually flat so I was only flicking it on as I approached a junction. Copper said it was a good idea and let me carry on my way and I got home without being squished, miraculous really.


----------



## Tim Hall (18 Jan 2017)

martint235 said:


> If a driver is looking and doesn't see the* two Hope* 1s at the front or the two bright lights at the back then what I'm wearing won't make the slightest difference to whether he hits me or not.


You've two Hopes. Bob Hope and no hope.

<rimshot>


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> No helmet?! Holy Trump Father of God, this woman needs locking up!


Sounds like my kind of lady,rebel !!


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

martint235 said:


> If a driver is looking and doesn't see the two Hope 1s at the front or the two bright lights at the back then what I'm wearing won't make the slightest difference to whether he hits me or not.


If he's looking, how can he fail to see your bright lights?


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> They don't make 'em like they used to.
> View attachment 333833
> 
> I got stopped by a copper whilst riding home one night as I didn't have my front light on, the problem was that the battery (which I had probably put in brand new about 15 minutes beforehand) was virtually flat so I was only flicking it on as I approached a junction. Copper said it was a good idea and let me carry on my way and I got home without being squished, miraculous really.


I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose.......I still have the scars from the aftermath of landing on freshly laid gravel on the road


----------



## Tim Hall (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> If he's looking, how can he fail to see your bright lights?


Too busy looking for the Invisible Gorilla I expect.


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

skudupnorth said:


> I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose.......I still have the scars from the aftermath of landing on freshly laid gravel on the road


My rear did the same (because the nuts always seem to rattle loose and the light would drop down the stay), but thankfully didn't throw me off - made one hell of a noise though - they were solid bloody things.


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> If he's looking, how can he fail to see your bright lights?


That's kind of the point Accy, what does it matter what colour jacket he is wearing?


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> My rear did the same (because the nuts always seem to rattle loose and the light would drop down the stay), but thankfully didn't throw me off - made one hell of a noise though - they were solid bloody things.


I ended up in hospital and the nurse thought I had been riding a motorbike with the amount of torn flesh and blood I had on show  I now wear those scars with pride


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> They don't make 'em like they used to.


Thank the gods!  I do sometimes wonder if the time spent in my youth trying to discern black tarmac from dark green verge in a dim yellow glow has anything to do with why my eyesight is very strange about contrast/brightness perception. I was cycling straight at the sun on a couple of sections of Saturday's 100k and took the front because others said they couldn't see - I could, but the view was almost inverted with road markings looking like black paint on a very light grey road. 



Tim Hall said:


> You've two Hopes. Bob Hope and no hope.
> 
> <rimshot>


When is the next series of great motorcycle journeys on?


----------



## martint235 (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> If he's looking, how can he fail to see your bright lights?


I have no idea. But on the occasions I've put my bike down in front of a car and asked the driver, they always claim to have been looking but didn't see me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> If a driver is looking, he still might not see you if you're dressed in black or other dark clothing. If he/she is looking you have a better chance of being seen in high viz.



What is this magical hi-vis that is more effective than lights?



Accy cyclist said:


> That goes for pedestrians as well



Like this head-to- toe fluorescently-clad crossing warden who was killed in broad daylight because his killer didn't see him directly in front of her outside a school?
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/cr...death-cps-drops-case-against-driver-1-6135894


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

skudupnorth said:


> I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose


They were meant to be mounted onto a fin brazed on the outside of the front fork, not directly to the fork IIRC, else that was a risk. If you didn't have a fin, there was some adapter to fit it to... I think the headset.



Bimble said:


> My rear did the same (because the nuts always seem to rattle loose and the light would drop down the stay), but thankfully didn't throw me off


The rears tended to get thrown clear by the wheel rotation, but rear-wheel lockups tend to be less dramatic anyway.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

skudupnorth said:


> I had the joy of coming to an abrupt standstill when one of those front lights ended up in my front wheel after the bracket came loose.......I still have the scars from the aftermath of landing on freshly laid gravel on the road


Same thing happened to someone I know (although I didn't at the time) and I would imagine many many others, they really were shocking  How did we ever survive?
Mind you I don't know what the lesser of the two evils was when the toss up was between them and a dynamo that wore your tyre away and made it feel like you were constantly going up a 1:4


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What is this magical hi-vis that is more effective than lights?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher.


And which stats did you use to form that statement...or is it from the school of "It's common sense, innit"?


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably


The thing is, and this is nothing personal, but that is subjective and very much an assumption. Other cyclists will tell you, for a fact, that they have been hit whilst wearing hi-viz and being well lit.

That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you _shouldn't_ wear it - of course, to any rational person it does make sense that something reflective, when worn at night, _should_ help to increase your visibility (and it probably does) - the problem isn't actually with you, the cyclist, and with your choice of clothing, the problem is inattentive drivers - and, as you've possibly experienced yourself, no amount of lights or hi-viz will help if the driver isn't paying attention - they simply don't see you and they pull out or drive into you.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you _shouldn't_ wear it


OK, I'll say that: it's not reasonable to say people should buy/carry/wear special clothes for cycling and you shouldn't wear it because that's perpetuating the myth and you should instead ensure that your bike is legally lit and reflective and if someone doesn't see good lights or reflectors then the presence or absence of an ugly coat is completely irrelevant and should never be mentioned by any cyclist.


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> The thing is, and this is nothing personal, but that is subjective and very much an assumption. Other cyclists will tell you, for a fact, that they have been hit whilst wearing hi-viz and being well lit.
> 
> That's not to say it isn't a reasonable precaution and you _shouldn't_ wear it - of course, to any rational person it does make sense that something reflective, when worn at night, _should_ help to increase your visibility (and it probably does) - the problem isn't actually with you, the cyclist, and with your choice of clothing, the problem is inattentive drivers - and, as you've possibly experienced yourself, no amount of lights or hi-viz will help* if the driver isn't paying attention* - they simply don't see you.


Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably



How would you better address the problem; issue everyone with Kevlar vests or instigate gun control?


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> OK, I'll say that: it's not reasonable to say people should buy/carry/wear special clothes for cycling and you shouldn't wear it because that's perpetuating the myth and you should instead ensure that your bike is legally lit and reflective and if someone doesn't see good lights or reflectors then the presence or absence of an ugly coat is completely irrelevant and should never be mentioned by any cyclist.


It's not a _myth_ - if it was you would be able to prove it was wrong, which we can't - we don't know for a fact that hi-viz has absolutely _no effect at all _- it may well have a positive and somewhat protective or preventative effect, we just can't show for sure that it does.


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> And which stats did you use to form that statement...or is it from the school of "It's common sense, innit"?


I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.


Ah, so your experience. So when you say 'the chances of being hit are higher', you're just making that up. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Bimble (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?


I would agree that there _appears to be some logic_ in that statement, and that common sense would lead you to _assume_ that someone more brightly lit and wearing reflective clothing _should_ be seen more readily - however, the experience of cyclists (well lit-up and wearing hi-viz) who get driven into ... counters that assumption. It would be interesting to know if there have been any studies done to show whether it makes any practical difference.

My partner insists that I wear certain "protective gear" for my cycle commute (which I do to save arguments about the _perception_ of safety and my actual experiences), but I don't wear it when out for a weekend ride. I really don't notice any difference in how drivers treat me, and have come across idiots whilst wearing both of my "get ups".


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Would you agree that a cyclist wearing hi-viz and with extra lighting over and above the minimum required by law is more likely to attract the attention of that driver than a cyclist wearing dark colours and the minimum required lighting?


Not significantly, no.



Bimble said:


> It's not a _myth_ - if it was you would be able to prove it was wrong, which we can't - we don't know for a fact that hi-viz has absolutely _no effect at all _- it may well have a positive and somewhat protective or preventative effect, we just can't show for sure that it does.


We can't prove it _absolutely_ because this is an experimental real-world kind of thing that doesn't have an absolute yes/no answer, but I think most of the research evidence has shown no benefit to cyclist health. Example http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/



Accy cyclist said:


> I base it on my driving experiences. I can see a well lit cyclist,or a cyclist wearing high viz far better than a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights or poor lights. Then i can act accordingly.


Do you act differently towards a cyclist wearing no hi-viz who has legal lights and reflectors? If so, why?


----------



## benb (18 Jan 2017)

If it's such a problem, why are unlit cyclists less than 2% of all cyclist KSI figures?

I'd submit that this debate is a colossal waste of time if the outcome we want is better road safety. You can dress head to toe in luminous clothing, and your risk of being hit is not substantially different to someone all in black.

We know what the single most common cause of KSI on the roads is: drivers not looking properly and/or driving too fast for the conditions. So if we want people to be safer, that's where we need to concentrate our efforts. Anything else is going to achieve FA reduction in KSI.


----------



## Mugshot (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably


Are you sure?


----------



## martint235 (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> My point is that ok,you could still be hit if you're wearing head to toe high viz with flashing lights, but the chances of being hit while wearing dark clothing are considerably higher. *It's the same with bullet proof vests. Wearing one in a shoot out doesn't guarantee you wont get shot but it does decrease the chance considerably*


There's an issue with your logic there.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> No it doesn't. It decreases the likelihood that, having been shot, the bullet will cause you a severe injury. A bulletproof vest doesn't make bullets magically veer around you.
> 
> Hi viz doesn't decrease the likelihood that, having been hit by a car, that the car will cause you a severe injury - not does it make cars magically veer around you.
> 
> Your analogy does not stand up.


If anything a bullet proof vest will increase your chance of being shot because you are now a slightly larger target, you are heavier so less agile and difficult to ascertain increases due to things risk-compensation thinking you are less vulnerable. Now, what does that all remind me of.....


----------



## Hugh Manatee (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> the Highway Cod should not be recommending.



Does he ride a motor pike and side carp?


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

Hugh Manatee said:


> Does he ride a motor pike and side carp?


*This is God speaking through Markymark*
Please halt all fish puns immediately*

*Slap around the face with a wet haddock for the first person to reply to this with a fish pun


----------



## Hugh Manatee (18 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> *This is God speaking through Markymark*
> Please halt all fish puns immediately*
> 
> *Slap around the face with a wet haddock for the first person to reply to this with a fish pun



Completely agree. We wouldn't want this thread diverted and just floundering around would we?


----------



## Markymark (18 Jan 2017)

Hugh Manatee said:


> Completely agree. We wouldn't want this thread diverted and just *floundering *around would we?


The thinnest of thin ice, my friend.


----------



## User32269 (18 Jan 2017)

I agree it appears to make sense to increase your visibility. The problem I have with the whole issue is the burden of safety always appears to be put upon all other road users except the ones, in a ton of metal, who do all the damage. 

A child was killed in the road outside my kids school. After campaigning the speed limit is now widely signposted at 20mph. Even though everybody was shocked and saddened at this life lost, it didn't take long for selfish scumbags to go over the limit, then throw their cars on pavements or block junctions, endangering more kids lives, so they didn't have to walk 20 yards to the school gate. 

All our kids were given hi viz vests to wear on the way to and from school. This will be no protection if they are hit by a car, but if your child was not wearing it at the time, a subtle perception that it was a contributing factor would exist.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

Hugh Manatee said:


> Does he ride a motor pike and side carp?


Autocorrect loves fishing, yet again.


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> They were meant to be mounted onto a fin brazed on the outside of the front fork, not directly to the fork IIRC, else that was a risk. If you didn't have a fin, there was some adapter to fit it to... I think the headset.
> 
> 
> The rears tended to get thrown clear by the wheel rotation, but rear-wheel lockups tend to be less dramatic anyway.


Mine was an aftermarket clamp affair which came lose and swivelled the wrong way


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> Same thing happened to someone I know (although I didn't at the time) and I would imagine many many others, they really were shocking  How did we ever survive?
> Mind you I don't know what the lesser of the two evils was when the toss up was between them and a dynamo that wore your tyre away and made it feel like you were constantly going up a 1:4
> View attachment 333835


That centre screw was supposed to help secure the dynamo bracket to your frame but it had no chance against the force of the spring that activated the main unit !


----------



## Sandra6 (18 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> I'm sorry if I have this wrong but it _sounds _as if you're suggesting that it wasn't really the motorists fault that they pulled out on you.


Not at all. And if you'd heard me turn the air blue at the time you'd know who I thought was at fault! 



mjr said:


> Proper bike lights have to be visible from the sides, which is an oft-overlooked benefit of standards-compliant lights. It's a shame the UK bicycle chain stores rarely sell any.
> 
> 
> My usual bike has the rear quarter of its rear mudguard white but I bet many of the nerks telling us to dress like alien space lemons haven't done that.


 My light is actually visible from the side now I come to think of it, it has a cut out bit for that exact purpose according to the packaging ! 


steve50 said:


> Because I use my lights when I am cycling. Even in daylight.
> .


why do you ride with lights on in the daylight? I'm assuming you mean even on a nice, clear, sunny day? 
We were once riding along a disused railway line on a beautiful summer's day and were dazzled for a full ten minutes by the oncoming cyclists ridiculously bright front light. 
I tend to follow the lead of other road users, and if the majority have their lights on, so do I.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

skudupnorth said:


> That centre screw was supposed to help secure the dynamo bracket to your frame but it had no chance against the force of the spring that activated the main unit !


Wasn't that screw meant to do up so tight that it pierced the paint and bit into the steel, providing the earth return connection for a headlight as well as resisting the spring?


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Sandra6 said:


> Not at all. And if you'd heard me turn the air blue at the time you'd know who I thought was at fault!
> 
> 
> My light is actually visible from the side now I come to think of it, it has a cut out bit for that exact purpose according to the packaging !
> ...



For clarity, I ride with my lights on in the winter months I also will switch my lights on in the summer months should the weather change (heavy rain or fog). I do not have my lights on during fine sunny weather, I also angle my front light so as not to dazzle other road users.

Edit; Up here in north west yorkshire it is quite common to see other cyclists riding with their lights on, probably something to do with the crap weather we seem to get a lot of.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Edit; Up here in north west yorkshire it is quite common to see other cyclists riding with their lights on, probably something to do with the crap weather we seem to get a lot of.


You don't think it's anything to do with many local cyclists thinking they should, possibly because West Yorkshire Police come out with evil shoot like "Hi-Vis clothing when cycling at night can be real a life saver"? I wish we had a data quality law like the USA so public bodies had to retract such unjustified claims when challenged. (Edit: most of that page is hilarious. Apparently "NEVER leave your bike over night as 80% of bike thefts occur during the hours of darkness" - so what? Take your bike to bed with you?)


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jan 2017)

Bimble said:


> I don't understand why people cycle without lights at night - you can pick up those little flashing single LED ones for a couple of quid at the pound-shop; doesn't seem worth the risk does it.


(back to page 1)

Chiswick is quite well lit. The difference between the visibility of a rider with a single, cheap flashing LED light and one with no lights would be negligible but the poundshop light would partially protect you from the following dangers:

Finger wagging cops.
Insurers who take advantage of you having no lights to reject your claim against a distracted driver knocking you down.
Finger wagging internet denizens who go online to chide you.


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> No it doesn't. It decreases the likelihood that, having been shot, the bullet will cause you a severe injury. A bulletproof vest doesn't make bullets magically veer around you.


 What i meant when i said shot,was penetrated by a bullet in the head, arm,leg,not just hit in the vest. A bullet proof vest gives you less chance of being killed or wounded than if you didn't wear one,


----------



## jefmcg (18 Jan 2017)

Accy cyclist said:


> What i meant when i said shot,was penetrated by a bullet in the head, arm,leg,not just hit in the vest. A bullet proof vest gives you less chance of being killed or wounded than if you didn't wear one,


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Why didn't you say that then?


Because a bullet proof vest gives you less chance of being killed or wounded if you get shot, but hi-vis doesn't change the chance of being killed or wounded if you get knocked off?


----------



## Slick (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Wasn't that screw meant to do up so tight that it pierced the paint and bit into the steel, providing the earth return connection for a headlight as well as resisting the spring?


I do remember that bracket, but I also remember an O'brien road bike that had an integral bolt and socket in the front fork to take the blade bracket. Cutting edge stuff.


----------



## potsy (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Because a bullet proof vest gives you less chance of being killed or wounded if you get shot, but hi-vis doesn't change the chance of being killed or wounded if you get knocked off?


Would a hi-viz bullet proof vest be any good in the event of getting knocked off?


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Because a bullet proof vest gives you less chance of being killed or wounded if you get shot, but hi-vis doesn't change the chance of being killed or wounded if you get knocked off?


I don't recall anyone claiming the hi-viz would change the chance of being killed or wounded if you get knocked off. It may reduce the chance of you getting knocked off though. A very difficult thing to quantify I will readily acknowledge as I very much doubt there are any statistics for accidents that didn't happen. I am happy to take it as an item of faith that increasing my visibility to motorists can only be a good thing.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> I am happy to take it as an item of faith that increasing my visibility to motorists can only be a good thing.


I am happy to take as an item of faith that wearing a St Christopher can only be a good thing.

Happy. But wrong.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I am happy to take as an item of faith that wearing a St Christopher can only be a good thing.
> 
> Happy. But wrong.


But are you going to start a religious war to convert the heathens who say that it's wrong?


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> It was the analogy used (incorrectly) by AccyCyclist in post #179.


I read his post and it was clear that he didn't mean what he actually said and fairly obvious (certainly to me and I suspect many others) that he meant that a bullet proof vest would increase the chances of surviving a gunshot. Which he did confirm later. I just chose not to pull him up on it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> I read his post and it was clear that he didn't mean what he actually said and fairly obvious (certainly to me and I suspect many others) that he meant that a bullet proof vest would increase the chances of surviving a gunshot.


Why do you suspect many others? and of what? and how are your suspicions relevant?

Or did you mean " certainly to me and, I suspect, many others" which, of course, means something quite different.

Meaning. Tricky, isn't it.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> I read his post and it was clear that he didn't mean what he actually said and fairly obvious (certainly to me and I suspect many others) that he meant that a bullet proof vest would increase the chances of surviving a gunshot. Which he did confirm later. I just chose not to pull him up on it.



It doesn't really matter what you type or how you try to put it across, there will always be the asshats on this forum who will deliberately twist it to suit their own purposes or create an argument.
To say we all "allegedly" share the same interest in the sport / passtime / hobby of cycling I have never come across such an argumentative bloody minded bunch in my life!!


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Meaning. Tricky, isn't it.


Actually no. Quite simple really.


----------



## skudupnorth (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Wasn't that screw meant to do up so tight that it pierced the paint and bit into the steel, providing the earth return connection for a headlight as well as resisting the spring?


It could have been, all I know, your paint was toast with those brackets !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Actually no. Quite simple really.



Well, someone certainly is.


----------



## steve50 (18 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Well, someone certainly is.


Really? Is there really any need to be so bloody minded!!
@Big Andy the ignore function on this forum can be very useful.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Really? Is there really any need to be so bloody minded!!
> @Big Andy the ignore function on this forum can be very useful.


Meaning matters. Ignore that at your peril.


----------



## mjr (18 Jan 2017)

User said:


> It seems some people here have problems expressing themselves clearly and don't understand how analogies work.


Analogies... everybody has one... it's like something else.


----------



## Slick (18 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Analogies... everybody has one... it's like something else.


A belly button.


----------



## Big Andy (18 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Really? Is there really any need to be so bloody minded!!
> @Big Andy the ignore function on this forum can be very useful.


Its not a problem. I give that sort of post all the consideration it deserves, which is none, they only reflect on the person making them.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Jan 2017)

Slick said:


> A belly button.


I think he means an a... hole and boy there are plenty on here!


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Why didn't you say that then?


So you accept my argument?


----------



## steve50 (19 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Nope. As I've explained it doesn't make sense.
> 
> *If you don't understand, ask a grown up to help you with the big words*.



Nasty, just plain nasty...................keyboard warrior springs to mind!!!


----------



## nickyboy (19 Jan 2017)

We should run a sweep; by which post # will this thread get locked?

I'm going 245...started OK but it's circling the plughole now


----------



## steve50 (19 Jan 2017)

Before it does get locked I personally believe this forum is an excellent resource for both new and veteran cyclists alike but the likes of reg and his little clique spoils it for myself and I imagine a lot of others. There is absolutely no need for nastiness and the smart arse answers they come up with, trying to make themselves look clever at the expense of others just goes to show how small minded they are.
I have made good use of the ignore button this last couple of days.


----------



## martint235 (19 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> We should run a sweep; by which post # will this thread get locked?
> 
> I'm going 245...started OK but it's circling the plughole now


Nah I reckon it's good for above 250


----------



## Big Andy (19 Jan 2017)

User said:


> If you don't understand, ask a grown up to help you with the big words.


Ironically thats perhaps the most childish comment in the whole thread. Perhaps you should demonstrate that you are in fact a grown up and apologise?
There is simply no need to be rude.


----------



## Markymark (19 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Ironically thats perhaps the most childish comment in the whole thread. Perhaps you should demonstrate that you are in fact a grown up and apologise?
> There is simply no need to be rude.


@User is being childish and rude, but he's right though.


----------



## User482 (19 Jan 2017)

benb said:


> If it's such a problem, why are unlit cyclists less than 2% of all cyclist KSI figures?
> 
> I'd submit that this debate is a colossal waste of time if the outcome we want is better road safety. You can dress head to toe in luminous clothing, and your risk of being hit is not substantially different to someone all in black.
> 
> We know what the single most common cause of KSI on the roads is: drivers not looking properly and/or driving too fast for the conditions. So if we want people to be safer, that's where we need to concentrate our efforts. Anything else is going to achieve FA reduction in KSI.


----------



## Big Andy (19 Jan 2017)

Markymark said:


> @User is being childish and rude, but he's right though.


The problem is any cedibility in his posts is lost amongst the rudeness


----------



## Markymark (19 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> The problem is any cedibility in his posts is lost amongst the rudeness


To you maybe. Not me. I don't let a little rudeness upset me and can see past it to see a point being made.


----------



## Shaun (19 Jan 2017)

This thread has been interesting at points along the way, but in the last few pages has become somewhat personal. Please be civil to each other or we'll intervene with exclusions and locks. Thanks, Shaun.


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2017)

Would that be a finger wag, Shaun?


----------



## Shaun (19 Jan 2017)

benb said:


> Would that be a finger wag, Shaun?


Indeed - very good.


----------



## nickyboy (19 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> We should run a sweep; by which post # will this thread get locked?
> 
> I'm going 245...started OK but it's circling the plughole now





Shaun said:


> This thread has been interesting at points along the way, but in the last few pages has become somewhat personal. Please be civil to each other or we'll intervene with exclusions and locks. Thanks, Shaun.



Dammit....a warning's no good to me at #245


----------



## martint235 (19 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Dammit....a warning's no good to me at #245


I'm still good!! I should just launch a torrent of abuse at various people in my next post and the job's a good 'un


----------



## Mugshot (19 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Dammit....a warning's no good to me at #245


Bloody good effort though!!


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Dammit....a warning's no good to me at #245



You need to get a few people to delete some posts further up thread, then causally throw in a few helmet comments.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

martint235 said:


> I'm still good!! I should just launch a torrent of abuse at various people in my next post and the job's a good 'un


Nobber


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> Before it does get locked I personally believe this forum is an excellent resource for both new and veteran cyclists alike but the likes of reg and his little clique spoils it for myself and I imagine a lot of others. There is absolutely no need for nastiness and the smart arse answers they come up with, trying to make themselves look clever at the expense of others just goes to show how small minded they are.
> I have made good use of the ignore button this last couple of days.


Probably on ignore but...

a) Reg doesn't have a little clique.
b) Meaning is important. Clarity of usage is critical. We only have the written word to go by and should not have to waste energy decoding people's posts. E.g Helping your uncle jack off a horse is an entirely different thing to helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and folk claiming "but that's not what I meant" when it is what they wrote is just dull. All we have are the words. Helpful if the right ones are used, in the right order, with a spot of punctuation, et cetera.
c) calling other people small minded is a teeny bit... small minded. Some of your side's posts on this thread are a bit nasty, dismissive, and come across slightly angry. Is that better than coming across as a smart arse?

If folk want to dress like Space Lemons; they can fill their boots. If they want to be lit up like Christmas Trees; go ahead. But please don't propose anecdata about safety, "common sense", or any other "but it's obvious" drivel on the issue of Hi Viz making a cyclist or horse rider, safer.

Science. Data. Facts. Invisible Gorillas. Please.

All else is just opinion and a vain waste of air.


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> folk claiming "but that's not what I meant" when it is they wrote is just dull



"when it is _*what*_ they wrote" I guess you meant.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

benb said:


> "when it is _*what*_ they wrote" I guess you meant.


Hoist, rather amusingly, on my own petard!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

steve50 said:


> You are right grumpy gregory , you are on ignore, but I thought I would have a look at what you had to say to see if it was anything intelligent or interesting..........................................you certainly live up to your user name...............oh, and you're back on ignore!!


That's a pov. CycleChat isn't an echo chamber. Opposing points of view are allowed.

Your post doesn't advance any worthwhile counter-argument to 'if they are looking they will see you, no matter what you wear, and if they aren't looking they won't see you, no matter what you wear, so it doesn't matter what you wear."

And my main objection to the "what you wear matters, it's obvious" argument is two fold.

Hardly anyone, apart from Brit expats, in countless cities and towns in mainland Europe where cycling is the norm, that is, a normal everyday activity, undertaken by the masses, by normal people in normal clothes, rather than an activity undertaken by weird people in weird clothes, wears hi-viz.

Hi Viz cyclists, wearing weird clothes, portray cycling as a weird activity, for weird people, which requires special safety equipment to take part in. It screams "cycling is dangerous". It isn't.

You may find this uninteresting and unintelligent. Others may not.


----------



## Hardrock93 (19 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Hoist, rather amusingly, on my own petard!


*With* your own petard.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Hardly anyone, apart from Brit expats, in countless cities and towns in mainland Europe where cycling is the norm, that is, a normal everyday activity, undertaken by the masses, by normal people in normal clothes, ...



You're telling me; just look at the riders in Utrecht. They must getting slaughtered by the dozen... right?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You're telling me; just look at the riders in Utrecht. They must getting slaughtered by the dozen... right?
> 
> View attachment 334046


No helmet, no hi-viz and WEARING HEADPHONES? Must have a deathwish.


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You're telling me; just look at the riders in Utrecht. They must getting slaughtered by the dozen... right?
> 
> View attachment 334046



To be fair, they are on largely segregated cycle paths, in a country with strong presumed liability, with drivers that are used to cyclists by the thousand. We get Dodgy Dave in a tipper truck trying to make his 15 load of the day.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> To be fair, they are on largely segregated cycle paths, in a country with strong presumed liability, with drivers that are used to cyclists by the thousand. We get Dodgy Dave in a tipper truck trying to make his 15 load of the day.


How does hi-viz protect you against Dodgy Dave?


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> How does hi-viz protect you against Dodgy Dave?



It has not been proven that it does or it does not, but it if it gives people a warm glow and gets them riding a bike then that is fine with me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> It has not been proven that it does or it does not, but it if it gives people a warm glow and gets them riding a bike then that is fine with me.



What if it deters people by portraying cycling as dangerous?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> It has not been proven that it does or it does not, but it if it gives people a warm glow and *gets them riding a bike* then that is fine with me.


If only it did that.


----------



## Big Andy (19 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What if it deters people by portraying cycling as dangerous?


Is there evidence that it portrays cycling as dangerous?


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Is there evidence that it portrays cycling as dangerous?


From a quick google it appears there is no interest in doing a survey about it. There are loaded surveys about whether or not it should be compulsory. By loaded I mean no indication is given with the question as to whether or not hi viz is actually beneficial, similar to helmet surveys.

However, 67% of non-cyclists in 2013 believed that it was TOO dangerous to cycle. Surely people wearing safety equipment, whether or not it is effective, has to play a part in that perception 

To be fair, this thread has descended into the usual anecdotal rubbish seen over in the helmet thread of "my brother's mate's cousin's friend wouldn't be with us now if he hadn't been wearing hi viz. How can you people sleep at night wishing for someone else to be made a widow"

Also I thought openly discussing who you are ignoring resulted in a wrist slap from the Mods


----------



## Profpointy (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> To be even more pedantic... you are hoist *by* or *with *your own petard - not *on* it...



Extra points if you know what a petard is, without using the google.

And for knowing who famously uses the phrase and who he's referring to


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Is there evidence that it portrays cycling as dangerous?



Milkfloat offered his opinion on one outcome, regardless of the data supporting or disproving the safety enhancement claims for hi-vis. I'm asking for his opinion should another outcome be true.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Extra points if you know what a petard is, without using the google.
> 
> And for knowing who famously uses the phrase and who he's referring to



It was a small metal drum containing explosives that would be placed with its open mouth against the wall of a fort or castle and detonated. It could easily blow up the person lighting the fuse, hence the phrase's use to mean being harmed by the very method you sought to harm others. Although I remember it was used by Shakespeare, I can't remember in which play or by which character.


----------



## nickyboy (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It was a small metal drum containing explosives that would be placed with its open mouth against the wall of a fort or castle and detonated. It could easily blow up the person lighting the fuse, hence the phrase's use to mean being harmed by the very method you sought to harm others. Although I remember it was used by Shakespeare, I can't remember in which play or by which character.



Doesn't it also come from the French "pet" meaning to fart? Or summat like that?


----------



## Profpointy (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It was a small metal drum containing explosives that would be placed with its open mouth against the wall of a fort or castle and detonated. It could easily blow up the person lighting the fuse, hence the phrase's use to mean being harmed by the very method you sought to harm others. Although I remember it was used by Shakespeare, I can't remember in which play or by which character.



Correct !


----------



## Profpointy (20 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Doesn't it also come from the French "pet" meaning to fart? Or summat like that?



Like the famous Le Petamaine, gloriously portrayed by Leonard Rossiter


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Jan 2017)

I saw an unlit cyclist at around 6.45pm last night. So did the car following him.

It did cross my mind however, that a couple of lights would probably be a bit more useful than his helmet.

HTH


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Doesn't it also come from the French "pet" meaning to fart? Or summat like that?



Yes, it's from _péter, _to fart. It's also the root for partridge, as the bird's rapid wingbeat on take off sounds like a fart.
Anyway, we're getting waaay off topic here!


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Milkfloat offered his opinion on one outcome, regardless of the data supporting or disproving the safety enhancement claims for hi-vis. I'm asking for his opinion should another outcome be true.



I did not state that high-vis provided any safety enhancement. I simple said that if enables people to feel safe riding a bike, then that is fine. 

Personally, I have reflectives and lights, but no high vis. In fact most of my kit is black so it does not show the stains.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I did not state that high-vis provided any safety enhancement.



I know that, I haven't claimed you did.



Milkfloat said:


> I simple said that if enables people to feel safe riding a bike, then that is fine.



And I'm asking you what if it deters people?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (20 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I saw an unlit cyclist at around 6.45pm last night. So did the car following him.
> 
> It did cross my mind however, that a couple of lights would probably be a bit more useful than his helmet.
> 
> HTH


How did the car see the cyclist?  I've heard of self-driving cars, but self-thinking?

Sorry, couldn't help that. I agree about the lights: they're always more useful than a helmet.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Perceptions-of-Safety-Stuff-website.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/glen-koorey.pdf


Thanks for those, have had a quick read through and will try to find the time to have a more thorough read through at some point, there are some interesting points but very few definite conclusions can be drawn, however my initial impression is that hi-viz is worn because of the perception that cycling is dangerous in the presence of motor vehicles, and not that it's the wearing of hi-viz that creates the impression that cycling is dangerous. Also that some of what puts people off is the perception that hi-viz clothing is somehow weird, perhaps people suggesting that wearing hi-viz is to "dress like Space Lemons" is what puts people off?

So I am still of the opinion that cylcists should be free to choose what "safety" apparel they wear without peer pressure or ridicule from either side of the debate.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> And I'm asking you what if it deters people?



Then concrete steps need to be taken to fix that. Simply shouting that his-vis is a red herring does not help, you won't convince people that high-vis is bad when 'it stands to reason'. People need to be encouraged other ways, such as;

Presumed Liability
Segregation where appropriate
Driver education
Tougher laws / implementation of existing ones for poor driving
etc.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> So I am still of the opinion that cylcists should be free to choose what "safety" apparel they wear without peer pressure or ridicule from either side of the debate.


Why should that be the case? It's not true for motorists - try driving around in an F1 helmet and see what happens when you get stopped by police. Usually the freedom to swing your arm stops at the other person's nose, so if wearing hi-viz is harming other people by discouraging them from cycling and contributing to the reverse of "safety in numbers" (danger in rarity?), it should be banned. It's not and it's probably not that important, but most of the peer pressure and ridicule tends to come from the H&H zealots and nicknaming it the Space Lemon look is nowhere near as bad as the pressure applied to any disbeliever.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Then concrete steps need to be taken to fix that. Simply shouting that his-vis is a red herring does not help, you won't convince people that high-vis is bad when 'it stands to reason'. People need to be encouraged other ways, such as;
> 
> Presumed Liability
> Segregation where appropriate
> ...


I'm not sure I'll ever be a fan of segregation. Possibly useful on a bridge or on a new straight road but generally I find that roads go where I want to go and a segregated cycle lane tends to get in my way plus as soon as a cycle lane is built motorists assume I have to be in it.

Zero tolerance on existing laws is what I'd do first followed by education for drivers.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> To be fair, they are on largely segregated cycle paths, in a country with strong presumed liability, with drivers that are used to cyclists by the thousand. We get Dodgy Dave in a tipper truck trying to make his 15 load of the day.


Not as segregated as you may think, in a country that only got strong presumed liability long relatively recently (long after mass cycling), with drivers that don't seem much better-behaved than English ones IMO (I've had a near-miss over there which could easily have happened here). I feel the road designs are better and give cyclists a chance to see the nobbers coming, but I doubt it's anything to do with nobbers being able to see the cyclists or not - the ones who don't care still don't care.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> try driving around in an F1 helmet and see what happens when you get stopped by police.


I'd expect nothing. Do police stop drivers wearing helmets?


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Why should that be the case? It's not true for motorists - try driving around in an F1 helmet and see what happens when you get stopped by police. Usually the freedom to swing your arm stops at the other person's nose, *so if wearing hi-viz is harming other people by discouraging them from cycling *and contributing to the reverse of "safety in numbers" (danger in rarity?), it should be banned. It's not and it's probably not that important, but most of the peer pressure and ridicule tends to come from the H&H zealots and nicknaming it the Space Lemon look is nowhere near as bad as the pressure applied to any disbeliever.


As far as I can see it's not the wearing of hi-viz that is particularly discouraging people from cycling, its the perception that its dangerous when not segregated from motorists, that perception causes some to not cycle and some to wear hi-viz. Cause= Perception of danger, effect = some to not cycle and some to wear hi-viz.

On here most ridicule seems to be aimed at those that choose to wear, hi-viz/helmets. There are very few H&H zealots on here.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

martint235 said:


> I'm not sure I'll ever be a fan of segregation. Possibly useful on a bridge or on a new straight road but generally I find that roads go where I want to go and a segregated cycle lane tends to get in my way plus as soon as a cycle lane is built motorists assume I have to be in it.
> 
> Zero tolerance on existing laws is what I'd do first followed by education for drivers.



Driver education has been going on for decades and hasn't got us anywhere. The zero tolerance I'd go for, but the biggest thing that could be done that will vastly increase the numbers of those cycling is segregated infrastructure. We need to cater for all ages and abilities, not just those of us who are prepared to tough it out with motorised traffic. (Perhaps this would be better with a thread of its own as I'm guessing it's nearly as divisive as helmets.)


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

Thinking more about it, perhaps forums like this are contributing to putting people off cycling. To read some posts it appears that every motorist is an idiot who isn't looking where he's going, if a non cyclist was reading some of the posts he wouldn't go near a road on his bike.

It's not my experience of riding on the roads though, can only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Driver education has been going on for decades and hasn't got us anywhere. The zero tolerance I'd go for, but the biggest thing that could be done that will vastly increase the numbers of those cycling is segregated infrastructure. We need to cater for all ages and abilities, not just those of us who are prepared to tough it out with motorised traffic. (Perhaps this would be better with a thread of its own as I'm guessing it's nearly as divisive as helmets.)


I'm not against it being there, in the same way I'm not against people wearing helmets. As I said though, the real issue is that when segregation is present, motorists believe I'm obligated to use it.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> those of us who are prepared to *tough *it out with motorised traffic.


Could it be that we are contributing to the problem of cycling being perceived as dangerous? Is cycling on the roads really toughing it out? Surely that implies it is?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Is cycling on the roads really toughing it out?



When there's an alternative that is shown to work, and enables those who would otherwise avoid it to cycle, then yes. I speak as a daily commuter in Glasgow where close passes, left hooks and general disdain for those who cycle are daily events.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> When there's an alternative that is shown to work, and enables those who would otherwise avoid it to cycle, then yes. I speak as a daily commuter in Glasgow where close passes, left hooks and general disdain for those who cycle are daily events.


So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"


----------



## Inertia (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Thinking more about it, perhaps forums like this are contributing to putting people off cycling. To read some posts it appears that every motorist is an idiot who isn't looking where he's going, if a non cyclist was reading some of the posts he wouldn't go near a road on his bike.
> 
> It's not my experience of riding on the roads though, can only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.


I dont think anyone is saying that, though car drivers that do hits cyclist would probably fit that description.


----------



## Inertia (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"


Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me. I doubt forums like this has much impact on the publics impression that cycling is dengerous.


----------



## Inertia (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"


Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me. I doubt forums like this has much impact on the publics impression that cycling is dengerous.


----------



## winjim (20 Jan 2017)

See these two massive hi-vis no right turn signs?





Yes? No? Because they, along with _No Right Turn_ written on the road in massive letters, and the sign on the left giving you alternative directions to the things that happen to be located up that right turn, seem to be utterly invisible to many drivers. Twice today I have crossed that road on foot, and twice I have had drivers turn right into my path.
So I don't put a great deal of faith in hi-vis as a safety aid.

Also, those parking spaces outside the shops on the left get in the way of the cycle lane, but that's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

Inertia said:


> Its difficult to identify exactly why people think its dangerous but I tell anyone who thinks it is that its not and most drivers are very considerate around me.


That's my experience too.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

winjim said:


> See these two massive hi-vis no right turn signs?
> View attachment 334105
> 
> Yes? No? Because they, along with _No Right Turn_ written on the road in massive letters, and the sign on the left giving you alternative directions to the things that happen to be located up that right turn, seem to be utterly invisible to many drivers. Twice today I have crossed that road on foot, and twice I have had drivers turn right into my path.
> ...


Yes, can see them clearly because they are hi-viz, even though one appears to be partially obscured by trees. So not a failure of Hi-Viz, more likely the drivers just ignoring them.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> So that leaves us with "cycling is perceived to be dangerous not because some wear hi-viz or helmets but because it is and we keep telling people it is!"


It's my opinion that people don't cycle because they're too damn lazy to, surveys are loaded to allow people to point to something more convenient for them to blame and it avoids them looking in the mirror and seeing their own fat chocolate covered face staring back at them. Hi-viz and helmets and insufficient segregation* gives an easy out of "It's dangerous".

*I'm not a fan of segregation.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

Mugshot said:


> It's my opinion that people don't cycle because they're too damn lazy to, surveys are loaded to allow people to point to something more convenient for them to blame and it avoids them looking in the mirror and seeing their own fat chocolate covered face staring back at them. Hi-viz and helmets and insufficient segregation* gives an easy out of "It's dangerous"..


You could be right!!


----------



## benb (20 Jan 2017)

And yet cycling has massively increased in the new segregated CSHs in London, and has doubled in a new segregated lane in Cambridge.
http://road.cc/215646

People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.
Whether that's because they feel unsafe or it's just not very pleasant, proper segregated infrastructure has been proven to increase cycling levels.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'd expect nothing. Do police stop drivers wearing helmets?


Not as far as I know, but I understand that the restricted visibility and head movement of many modern motor racing helmets means that it's regarded as careless to wear them when driving on open roads. Sadly, I can't find the source for that now, although I did find that some classes of motorcycle racing helmet aren't road-legal for similar reasons.



User said:


> And of course, segregation is concentrated in urban areas - the overwhelming majority of Dutch roads have no segregation at all.


I agree with the rest, but is the above true? In urban areas, I seemed to spend more time sharing filtered 30kmh carriageways or on painted or low-kerbed lanes (not massively different to the new Cambridge ones), whereas segregation seemed mostly alongside fast busy mostly-rural roads.



benb said:


> People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.


Yeah, that's my view: it's surprisingly safe to ride on a trunk A road, but I always feel that I'm in the way (I know I have as much right as any other road user but I still feel like they're having to avoid me), so I feel pressured to always ride full-tilt and it's not as much fun as a good track. It's not even as much fun as some dodgy gravel tracks, but I'd rather not have to use those either. I'll gladly defend the right of others to ride on carriageways, but it doesn't make my heart sing like a good country road or cycle track and I can't see it inspiring many people to get cycling. Cycling should be fun and easy.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Only about 1/4 of Dutch roads have any physical segregation. About another 3-4% have unsegregated on road lanes. Other than that, you mingle with traffic.


Yeah, but where is that quarter? You said it's urban, while I felt it was rural. I didn't find the detail when I looked but I didn't spend that long yet.

The Netherlands makes much more use of bollarded/filtered minor roads than most people here seem to think, so the numbers don't surprise me.


----------



## winjim (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Yes, can see them clearly because they are hi-viz, even though one appears to be partially obscured by trees. So not a failure of Hi-Viz, more likely the drivers just ignoring them.


Well, quite. What's up that right turn is a large hospital with a specialist maternity / neonatal wing. The no right turn is, as I understand it, to avoid impeding the ambulances.

So you've got a combination of signs which to my eye sort of blend into the shop signage, with the left hand sign actually being some distance ahead of the junction to which it refers, and drivers who may be from out of town and unfamiliar with the roads, rushing to get to a hospital appointment, worried about their kids etc and not expecting there to be a no right turn.

If the purpose of the hi-vis is to attract drivers' attention so they are aware of the signs and to prevent right turns, then it has failed.


----------



## Slick (20 Jan 2017)

benb said:


> And yet cycling has massively increased in the new segregated CSHs in London, and has doubled in a new segregated lane in Cambridge.
> http://road.cc/215646
> 
> People don't want to cycle in close proximity to large dangerous vehicles, regardless of how objectively safe it is.
> Whether that's because they feel unsafe or it's just not very pleasant, proper segregated infrastructure has been proven to increase cycling levels.


In my own personal instance, I think it's both.

Yeah, that's my view: it's surprisingly safe to ride on a trunk A road, but I always feel that I'm in the way (I know I have as much right as any other road user but I still feel like they're having to avoid me), so I feel pressured to always ride full-tilt and it's not as much fun as a good track. It's not even as much fun as some dodgy gravel tracks, but I'd rather not have to use those either. I'll gladly defend the right of others to ride on carriageways, but it doesn't make my heart sing like a good country road or cycle track and I can't see it inspiring many people to get cycling. Cycling should be fun and easy.[/QUOTE]
I kind of feel the same way and it certainly reduces the enjoyment. I've come to the conclusion that commutes are full tilt and weekends are for going where you want at a pace you fancy.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

winjim said:


> If the purpose of the hi-vis is to attract drivers' attention so they are aware of the signs and to prevent right turns, then it has failed.


If the purpose is to prevent *ALL *right turns it has failed yes, however it may have prevented many right turns.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> If the purpose is to prevent *ALL *right turns it has failed yes, however it may have prevented many right turns.


Can I interest you in buying an Elephant repellant for your home?


----------



## winjim (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> If the purpose is to prevent *ALL *right turns it has failed yes, however it may have prevented many right turns.


True. In fact I seem to remember it wasn't always there, it used to be just regular no right turn signs, so I wonder if they've monitored its effectiveness.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> I think that the Council are overplaying the effect of the two cycle lanes in Cambridge


Probably. There's the obvious effect of Hospital-bound cyclists from further north/northwest using the new lanes to avoid the slow wiggle to get onto/off of the track by the guided busway, plus its railway bridge seems shorter than the Addenbrookes-busway one.

But from the experiences riding it a few times last month, I suspect it would still come out as a net increase cycling over a cordon running E-W across the midpoint of the new tracks, if they bothered to do one.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Can I interest you in buying an Elephant repellant for your home?


We have a dog that takes care of that one, 100% record of success too.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> My understanding is that it it mainly urban.


In other words, you can't find a credible answer either?



User said:


> my experience is that most minor roads in rural areas have no segregation.


And my experience is that most major roads do and they tend not to put major roads through urban areas as far as possible, which doesn't disagree with your experience (that I share FWIW) but still ends up with most segregation being in rural areas.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Yeah, that's my view: it's surprisingly safe to ride on a trunk A road, but I always feel that I'm in the way (I know I have as much right as any other road user but I still feel like they're having to avoid me), so I feel pressured to always ride full-tilt and it's not as much fun as a good track. It's not even as much fun as some dodgy gravel tracks, but I'd rather not have to use those either. I'll gladly defend the right of others to ride on carriageways, but it doesn't make my heart sing like a *good country road *or cycle track and I can't see it inspiring many people to get cycling. Cycling should be fun and easy.


I'm the opposite unless I'm in company. On my own, on a country lane, my constant thought is what is going to come round that next bend and is he likely to be travelling at speed on my side of the road? On a wide A road I can usually see for quite a way (I'm thinking A2/A20 style roads here) plus there's the fact that an A road usually takes a fairly direct route.

If I'm in company, ride a way back so that someone else discovers what's coming round the next bend


----------



## benb (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Can I interest you in buying an Elephant repellant for your home?


----------



## gilespargiter (20 Jan 2017)

Policeman on motorbike seen talking to cyclist - causes twenty two pages of comment on internet. WOW! (I did'nt take my coat off). . .


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2017)

gilespargiter said:


> Policeman on motorbike seen talking to cyclist - causes twenty two pages of comment on internet. WOW! (I did'nt take my coat off). . .


Pah!!! I had a bad, grumpy commute 4 and a half years ago and it's now on page 1582!!!!!


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> my experience of riding on the roads . . [I can] only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.


You're a lucky, lucky person, or you don't cycle much on roads (or haven't yet 'cos you're young), or your threshold of 'driving which causes an issue' is higher than many, or all the drivers of vehicles that have come into proximity with you are cautious, careful, polite lookers.


----------



## Big Andy (20 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> You're a lucky, lucky person, or you don't cycle much on roads (or haven't yet 'cos you're young), or your threshold of 'driving which causes an issue' is higher than many, or all the drivers of vehicles that have come into proximity with you are cautious, careful, polite lookers.


50 to 100 miles a week. However it reinforces my point that it isn't the wearing of hi-viz or helmets that gives cycling the perception of being dangerous, it either is dangerous or it's cyclists complaining about bad driving that gives the perception.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2017)

Big Andy said:


> Thinking more about it, perhaps forums like this are contributing to putting people off cycling. To read some posts it appears that every motorist is an idiot who isn't looking where he's going, if a non cyclist was reading some of the posts he wouldn't go near a road on his bike.
> 
> It's not my experience of riding on the roads though, can only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.


The only reason I am still alive is that the vast majority of motorists either see me because they are looking, or, when driving in a state of wakeful unconsciousness, their trajectory takes them past me.

The ones who aren't looking are the danger, they won't see me no matter what, and those who go too fast for the road and conditions, and three drivers in those two groups have had me off since 95


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> You're a lucky, lucky person, or you don't cycle much on roads (or haven't yet 'cos you're young), or your threshold of 'driving which causes an issue' is higher than many, or all the drivers of vehicles that have come into proximity with you are cautious, careful, polite lookers.


Or maybe he only rides with his eyes closed, so doesn't perceive any dangerous motorists?

I'm quite keen for people not to grumble about bad driving online beyond a "watch out for this if you see it" type warning. Just report the nobbers to the police.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Or maybe he only rides with his eyes closed, so doesn't perceive any dangerous motorists?
> 
> I'm quite keen for people not to grumble about bad driving online beyond a "watch out for this if you see it" type warning. Just report the nobbers to the police.


My definition of bad driving is too low for the police to engage with. Endangering my life is not enough. Ending it might be. But I'm not certain about that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2017)

gilespargiter said:


> Policeman on motorbike seen talking to cyclist - causes twenty two pages of comment on internet. WOW! (I did'nt take my coat off). . .


Good. But slightly misses the point. Much of the debate isn't around Inspector Knacker's actions but rather the opinions of other cyclists towards his victim's dress code.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2017)

martint235 said:


> I'm the opposite unless I'm in company. On my own, on a country lane, my constant thought is what is going to come round that next bend and is he likely to be travelling at speed on my side of the road? On a wide A road I can usually see for quite a way (I'm thinking A2/A20 style roads here) plus there's the fact that an A road usually takes a fairly direct route.
> 
> If I'm in company, ride a way back so that someone else discovers what's coming round the next bend


My old rural commute. C class roads. At night. I can hear the car gaining on me as I climb the uphill z bend. The wash from my lights doesn't light up the trees. He's closing fast... Do I hug the pothole riddled gutter? Do I ride wide so he'll see me sooner as the bend unwinds? Should I just be getting the train home?

Squeal of brakes, horn blast, swerve. And relax the sphincter. He's past. But once it was squeal of brakes, no horn, no swerve, and thud, we're off and I need a new back wheel and a lift to a and e.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> My old rural commute. C class roads. At night. I can hear *the car* gaining on me as I climb the *uphill* z bend.


I've highlighted the troublesome elements largely absent from smaller country roads in the fens, which may explain my different attitude/generalisation.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Just tractors for you then?


With huge scary blades the full width of the road. Usually taller than the houses with flashing lights so pretty easy to spot when most hedges are lower than a top tube. 

(edited: grrr autocorrect)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> I've highlighted the troublesome elements largely absent from smaller country roads in the fens, which may explain my different attitude/generalisation.


I did once cause a two-car rta on the same hill.

Apparently the driver passing me saw me but didn't see the car coming from the other direction. Boom! Two very bent cars, in bits, all over the road, and chummy trying to blame me for riding in the middle of the road.


----------



## Ajax Bay (21 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Are you related to Nigel?


Not any more! Elizabeth is moving on; maybe.


----------



## gilespargiter (22 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Are you related to Nigel?



That allusion is part of a private joke - guy that takes around 20 seconds to fall 40-50ft !?!


----------

