# no blasted lights.



## drewc65 (7 Nov 2013)

Passed 3 people today with no lights on. This was between 05.00 and 05.15 this morning and on an unlit road. One didn't even have any hi viz at all. What is wrong with them do they think their bullet proof or something. Lights don't cost a fortune. The one with no hi viz on I almost hit and I was on my bike. IDIOTS ! ( rant over with )


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

The tree of life is self pruning.


----------



## drewc65 (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> The tree of life is self pruning.


A bit off Darwinism there me thinks


----------



## cosmicbike (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> The tree of life is self pruning.


 
Yep, had a few of them last night, 2 lads, 1 bike, all wearing black, no lights, middle of the road, prats. No doubt it would have been my fault if I hit them though...


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

2754599 said:


> You can buy a flasher from Planet-X for £2 each, and that is containing the battery. At that price it is easy to carry a pair to give to unlight cyclists.



Would they have the brains to attach and switch them on ?


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> The tree of life is self pruning.


Yes but, do you want to be the poor sod that splatters one of these morons? (And let's not start the debate about it being the drivers responsibility to ensure the road is clear to proceed. Running/riding around in the road, in the dark, in traffic is just stupid and before anyone points out that pedestrians aren't lit, they have an obligation to cross when the road is clear!)

EDIT: Oh dear! TMN beat me to it


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

I see them regularly, at least 3 last night.
Most of them appear to cycle in a similar disinterested and slow (I wish I had a car and why do I have to push) way, probably on their way to work or heading home.
They are not a good image for the cycle community.


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

2754647 said:


> This one has been debated endlessly here. The essential problem is that the arrangements we have on our roads came on the back of a basic premise that only the great and good travelled along our roads at any speed and everyone else got out of the way. We have allowed that to continue so that all soft traffic is marginalized and unquestioningly so.


I like your response, but they should still have lights shouldn't they ?


----------



## jarlrmai (7 Nov 2013)

Let he who is with orange pedal reflectors cast the 1st stone.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

2754647 said:


> This one has been debated endlessly here. The essential problem is that the arrangements we have on our roads came on the back of a basic premise that only the great and good travelled along our roads at any speed and everyone else got out of the way. We have allowed that to continue so that all soft traffic is marginalized and unquestioningly so.


Hmmmm. So what you are saying is that everyone should have the 'right' to wander around in the road at night without consideration for their own basic safety which should be the responsibility of everyone else? Are these the same people who also want the 'right' to own and use cars? It can't work both ways can it?

EDIT: It's wander, not wonder (I think).


----------



## drewc65 (7 Nov 2013)

That's also the annoying thing they just wander around the road. Girl I was behind this morning no hands on the bars and swerving all over road and this road is used by HGV. I use it in my truck and they don't see me and my motor is 17 tons and bright yellow.


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

I am confused.com, thought this was about people not having lights on their bikes (in the dark) ?


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

2754688 said:


> Your replies illustrate my point. As a society we don't even question the arrangement that someone travelling along a road takes priortity over someone crossing it. We just accept that it is the way it is.


 I don't see how your comment is relevant to this discussion. As you say yourself, society wants roads and cars so 'society' accept the conditions/compromises this entails. That is a done deal. How then does that make it ok for someone to go play in the road at night with no lights? It is a persons own responsibility to make sure they act safely to the best of their ability. Equally you could say a person should not go up a ladder without making sure it won't slip out from under them or go climbing mountains in winter in just their beach wear. It is a question of reasonable precautions.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

Koga said:


> I am confused.com, thought this was about people not having lights on their bikes (in the dark) ?


It is but, as I suggested several posts ago, it will be hijacked by those who like a good argument in the face of reason!

EDIT: I on the other hand have some decorating to be getting on with before SWMBO gets home. I'll pop back in later to make sure you are all playing nicely....


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

2754723 said:


> It is but that becomes a consideration of general rights and responsibilities on our roads. Drivers of large and dangerous vehicles bring a capability to kill or damage onto our roads. By and large pedestrians don't. A sensible arrangement would be that the drivers of those vehicles should be made responsible for that danger. What happens is the opposite with responsibility being transferred and calls for hi-viz for pedestrians and people driving with lights on so that pedestrians can see them and keep out of the way.



So what of the danger to pedestrians when they step out in the road in front of an unlit Ninja/silent cyclist moving at speed ?


----------



## Markymark (7 Nov 2013)

I want a society where roads are designated for carrying vehicles up the to speedlimit. Anybody using those roads, (on the actual tarmac) whether they becyclists, drivers or peds should take enough precuation to make themselves safe by being seen. The alternative of traffic travellig at 10 mph to avoid hitting anyone unlit would cuase massive problems to he running of this country and I would say is a terrible idea of a utopian infrastructure

The change I would want to push for is strict adherence to the law as it stands and stiffer punsihment for those that break it.


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

2754723 said:


> It is but that becomes a consideration of general rights and responsibilities on our roads. Drivers of large and dangerous vehicles bring a capability to kill or damage onto our roads. By and large pedestrians don't. A sensible arrangement would be that the drivers of those vehicles should be made responsible for that danger. What happens is the opposite with responsibility being transferred and calls for hi-viz for pedestrians and people driving with lights on so that pedestrians can see them and keep out of the way.


The minimum reason for lights on bikes (and cars and HGVs) surely is to be seen and therefore avoiding a possible accident with anybody. Hi-viz in my opinion is optional.


----------



## andrewpreston (7 Nov 2013)

2754723 said:


> It is but that becomes a consideration of general rights and responsibilities on our roads. Drivers of large and dangerous vehicles bring a capability to kill or damage onto our roads. By and large pedestrians don't. A sensible arrangement would be that the drivers of those vehicles should be made responsible for that danger. What happens is the opposite with responsibility being transferred and calls for hi-viz for pedestrians and people driving with lights on so that pedestrians can see them and keep out of the way.


Two issues are being conflated here. I doubt anyone would argue for pedestrians having to carry lights and wear hi-viz,but this is about people riding bikes, I.e. being the vehicle traveling along the road,making themselves difficult to see for other people using the road.Those road users should be as responsible as we expect other road users to be.


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)

Koga said:


> The minimum reason for lights on bikes (and cars and HGVs) surely is to be seen and therefore avoiding a possible accident with anybody. Hi-viz in my opinion is optional.


the lights on cars and HGVs are designed to illuminate the road ahead, to enable them to see things that don't have their own source of illumination,,, they work very well. Even ninjas on bikes can be spotted using such a device.

Whilst I have lights and reflectors on my bike and person to increase my visibility ... i find it worrying to read posts along the lines of '_if i did knock them off it'd be my fault and that's wrong_' ... at the end of the day, it's ones own responsibility not to ride/drive into things that are ahead of them.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

2754782 said:


> Two points. Firstly an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz.
> 
> Secondly you are confusing failing to make oneself more visible with making onself harder to see.




So just to clarify, are you trying to justify people cycling on the roads without lights in poor conditions or at night ?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (7 Nov 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> Let he who is with orange pedal reflectors cast the 1st stone.



*casts stone*

You didn't say "on the bike". I have some SPD reflectors hung in the shed


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> So just to clarify, are you trying to justify people cycling on the roads without lights in poor conditions or at night ?


I think Adrian is trying to point out that, in his first point... victim blaming is wrong, and in his second point, victim blaming is wrong.

I've sat on both sides of the fence in such discussions, but the one constant in these 'no lights / no hi-viz' rants is that these so-called 'ninjas' are clearly visible.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (7 Nov 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> Let he who is with orange pedal reflectors cast the 1st stone.


that'll be me then.

I get and fully agree with the arguments about the responsibility of the big nasty dominant predator to look out for the little vulnerable squidgys, but responsibility is not a one way street, it never has been it never will be. There is an element of personal responsibility in assisting, not usurping or abdicating them from, those with far grater killing or maiming capacity in their duty of care to the rest of us.

Lights after dark; for those vulnerables routinely in the road with the big nasty's - including pedestrians if they know that they'll be walking along unpavemented roads; are quite clearly IMO part of that personal responsibility, as they invariably show up from further away than the range of a dipped beam headlight, clearly identify that there is *something* out there to be aware of and so allow the bigger more dangerous element plenty of extra time to consider & differentiate what they are approaching and negotiate it in a mutually safer and more controlled manner.

Better than some last minute before they're *clearly* seen (@User13710 et al) 'oh s**t there's a bike/person there' moment and sharp overtaking manouvre; even when travelling within the legal speed limit (or worse make them make a value judgement of what to hit if the other carriageway is full of vehicle too) just to prove a point on who should take responsibility,

You could argue that in @Adrian world where the vehicle is totally responsible for your safety, that you don't need to indicate your intentions, listen for engine noise closing or look over your shoulder before turning particularly right as they bear responsibility for anticipating your every whim and possible manouvre.
I've yet to hear any cyclist argue that looking over your shoulder is victim blaming or part of the 'them' conspiracy to skew responsibility for safety disproportionately onto our shoulders.


----------



## bikingdad90 (7 Nov 2013)

I was travelling home on a back road last night which has a 60 limit and no street lamps and relys on car headlights to light the way. I came across a ninja cyclist who not only had no lights, he was dressed completely in black so was practically invisble. I only saw him because of the orange reflectors on the pedals but still felt he was completely irresponsible and was taking life into his own hands. In stark contrast I then came across a cyclist with "to be seen" lights and with Hi-Vis jacket on and I could see him much further away and gave him much more room as I was prepared to manoveur round him much earlier. Therefore I fully support a change in the law requiring people to take responsibility to be seen instead of relying on car/HGV drivers to do it for them.


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

What is it with cyclists victim blaming because a cyclists wasnt head to toe dress like a HiViz clown? Lights yes fine we need them but most of the people I see dressed over the top with HiViz have naff lights on at night!!

Its the same old excuse "cyclist wasn't wearing the correct attire" what a joke and cyclists themselves are encouraging it, probs the same ones who ride 5mph and never indicate or shoulder check.


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

> Therefore I fully support a change in the law requiring people to take responsibility to be seen instead of relying on car/HGV drivers to do it for them



If you make cyclists wear HiViz you will slash cycling numbers by at least 60%


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

chris harte said:


> I was travelling home on a back road last night which has a 60 limit and no street lamps and relys on car headlights to light the way. I came across a ninja cyclist who not only had no lights, he was dressed completely in black so was practically invisble. I only saw him because of the orange reflectors on the pedals but still felt he was completely irresponsible and was taking life into his own hands. In stark contrast I then came across a cyclist with "to be seen" lights and with Hi-Vis jacket on and I could see him much further away and gave him much more room as I was prepared to manoveur round him much earlier. Therefore I fully support a change in the law requiring people to take responsibility to be seen instead of relying on car/HGV drivers to do it for them.



Maybe if they reduced the limit to 30 you would have had time to see said cyclist better?


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> I hope you never find yourself in the position of having to hear a driver say, 'Sorry mate, I didn't see you.' This change in the law that you are so keen on will just give every driver that get-out clause, and whatever cyclists/pedestrians et al. do to make themselves perfectly visible, it will never be enough.
> 
> If *a short-tempered troll like MontyVeda* can get this one, I really don't see why you can't (and @MontyVeda, I take it all back now ).



you missed out _ill-controlled_ and _small-minded_


----------



## Mugshot (7 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> If you make cyclists wear HiViz you will slash cycling numbers by at least 60%


Wow, that's some percentage, can you back that up with some excellent evidence?


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)




----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Wow, that's some percentage, can you back that up with some excellent evidence?



You could take a look at the helmet law change in Oz, over 60% stopped cycling and its taken over 10 years for numbers to start increasing,.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> You could take a look at the helmet law change in Oz, over 60% stopped cycling and its taken over 10 years for numbers to start increasing,.


I thought you said hi-viz.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Nov 2013)

Blimey.. All I wear on my commute is all black... makes me a prat apparently.


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

Mugshot said:


> I thought you said hi-viz.



My figure was based on safety equipment introduced and the affect on cycling numbers, does it matter if it is helmet or hiviz? Just asking like.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Blimey.. All I wear on my commute is all black... makes me a prat apparently.


Me too, and I ride a dirty grey/black bike. However, I do have a set of half decent lights. Cheap ones but 'light' years ahead of what was typically used 20yrs ago when LED lighting was taking off. I wouldn't go out after dusk without them, I'm not stoopid!


----------



## HLaB (7 Nov 2013)

The best route out of town for me is through Orton Mere, the path and then road are unlit you come accross some right ninja's there, fortunately the ones I have met so far have the sense to stop or slow down as they approach. There's been a few I've not seen till they've past, heard them before I saw them 
There's another path I sometimes take and allthough its roadside is separated by a 5ft concrete wall which makes it pitch black I've coome across a fair number on it too and because its roadside you don't always hear them 
I need to get back to cycling on the road more.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (7 Nov 2013)

HLaB said:


> The best route out of town for me is through Orton Mere, the path and then road are unlit you come accross some right ninja's there, fortunately the ones I have met so far have the sense to stop or slow down as they approach. There's been a few I've not seen till they've past, heard them before I saw them
> There's another path I sometimes take and allthough its roadside is separated by a 5ft concrete wall which makes it pitch black I've coome across a fair number on it too and because its roadside you don't always hear them
> I need to get back to cycling on the road more.



But it's the point of this thread that they are actually visible, it's your responsibility if you don't see them and something happens, and having them make an effort towards higher visibility will be like asking Australians to wear helmets


----------



## shouldbeinbed (7 Nov 2013)

2754899 said:


> You could argue all sorts of stuff, if your are happy with making up other people's opinions for them.



Where?



2754899 said:


> There is a good reason why you have never heard that argument, no one is arguing it.



Precicely so why the angst amongst some cyclists over making use of lights and hi-viz when appropriate?


----------



## Markymark (7 Nov 2013)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> But it's the point of this thread that they are actually visible, it's your responsibility if you don't see them and something happens, and having them make an effort towards higher visibility will be like asking Australians to wear helmets


What if they're not visible until it's too late, even when driving with the legal speed limit?


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> What if they're not visible until it's too late, even when driving with the legal speed limit?



Presumed liability  You are the one driving 1.5 tones of alloy not the cyclist.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> My figure was based on safety equipment introduced and the affect on cycling numbers, does it matter if it is helmet or hiviz? Just asking like.



The thing which affects cycling numbers is will to cycle. Ask people in the middle of winter if they want to use them, and most will say no, ask again in the middle of summer, and they will say yes.
Weather conditions and the quality of routes and road surfaces will make much more difference than compulsion.


----------



## andrewpreston (7 Nov 2013)

2754782 said:


> Two points. Firstly an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz.
> 
> Secondly you are confusing failing to make oneself more visible with making onself harder to see.


Mea culpa. I shouldn't have implied that these people are deliberately trying to be invisible, they are just being irresponsible and breaking the law by not showing lights on a bike during the hours of darkness. Are you advocating a change in the law to allow the use of a vehicle at night without lights. Even horses are supposed to show a white to the front and a red to the rear after lighting up time.


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> the lights on cars and HGVs are designed to illuminate the road ahead, to enable them to see things that don't have their own source of illumination,,, they work very well. Even ninjas on bikes can be spotted using such a device.
> 
> Whilst I have lights and reflectors on my bike and person to increase my visibility ... i find it worrying to read posts along the lines of '_if i did knock them off it'd be my fault and that's wrong_' ... at the end of the day, it's ones own responsibility not to ride/drive into things that are ahead of them.


 
I agree with you and I can not understand anybody not having decent lights (ideally with some reflecting things) on their bike for when it is dark. It is total irresponsible and not fair to other people on the road.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> What if they're not visible until it's too late, even when driving with the legal speed limit?


It's a limit not a target.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> It's a limit not a target.



Fail to meet the limit Target on your driving test, and you will also fail your test.

Driving at a speed which you can stop within the distance you can see to be safe is also applicable, but I think you would find a conviction for hitting an unlit cyclist a hard one to make stick.


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

Imagine everyone peds included having to dress up like a HiViz clown just so to get the attention of a driver who mentally has nodded off watching the rear lights of the car in front!!

What a world.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> What a stupid thing to say. If that were true, no one would ever be convicted of hitting an unlit pedestrian.



Pedestrians are not obliged by existing laws to wear lights...whereas cyclists and other road users are.

Only an idiot would attempt to argue otherwise..


----------



## ianrauk (7 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> Imagine *everyone peds included having to dress up like a HiViz clown* just so to get the attention of a driver who mentally has nodded off watching the rear lights of the car in front!!
> 
> What a world.




It's happening already.
Schools in my borough have walking to school trains. All the teachers, walkers and kids are wearing hi-viz vests and jackets.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

2755048 said:


> No I am not, it is now too late for that the argument was conceded long since. I think it was a mistake to concede it as it was the start of creeping transfer of responsibility from the road users who are dangerous to other to their potential victims.




I'm waiting for TMN to like this post and contradict herself


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> It's happening already.
> Schools in my borough have walking to school trains. All the teachers, walkers and kids are wearing hi-viz vests and jackets.



That is because of the elf and safety with schools taking 'reasonable care' when outside school gates.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Fail to meet the limit Target on your driving test, and you will also fail your test.
> 
> Driving at a speed which you can stop within the distance you can see to be safe is also applicable, but I think you would find a conviction for hitting an unlit cyclist a hard one to make stick.


It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed. 

Had I hit an unlit cyclist at _any_ point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.


----------



## Koga (7 Nov 2013)

Show me the light, I am lost and it is day time !


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> Where exactly have I argued that? Are you saying that, because of this, no pedestrians or cyclists showing lights ever get hit by cars?



I'll thank you to not try and put words in my mouth. A cyclist using lights is a magnatude more visible day or night...especially as a lot of cars on the roads now have DRLs which tend to draw the eye a lot more than a vehicle not using them.

Cyclists are not pedestrians, pedestrians are not cyclists. If you want to claim the rights of a pedestrian, then get of and walk !


----------



## Mugshot (7 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> My figure was based on safety equipment introduced and the affect on cycling numbers, does it matter if it is helmet or hiviz? Just asking like.


It matters if you meant one thing but tried using a percentage from another, 83% of the time they are not transferable.


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)

I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'. 

Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough. 

where Adrain said "an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz." ... would you (@Linford) say the insurer is right in this case? If the answer is 'yes'... then the next case may well be "the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough hi-viz, and it's still partially their fault they were hit."

Like i say... we're not arguing against taking responsibility for ones own visibility... it's about shifting the blame from those with ultimate responsibility, that being the 'hitter'.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed.
> 
> Had I hit an unlit cyclist at _any_ point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.



I have a driving instructor sat 20 ft from me as I type this. I've had this conversation with him before.If you show lack of confidence or control, they will fail you. Being able to drive at a given speed when conditions permit is a demonstration of that on a test.


----------



## Leodis (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed.
> 
> *Had I hit an unlit cyclist at any point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.*



I doubt it with the attitude of most driving instructors.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'.
> 
> Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough.
> 
> ...


The problem is that whenever a thread like this is started we don't have a


MontyVeda said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible


 followed by a debate on the transferance of blame, you will have something like this


User13710 said:


> you obviously saw them quite clearly.


followed by an it's everybody elses fault thread.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Being able to drive at a given speed *when conditions permit*


My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'.
> 
> Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough.
> 
> ...



I would certainly not argue for a reduction in compensation because of High Viz for peds, but I do feel that we all have a responsibility to keep ourselves from harm. The notion of compensation is a sideshow when the loss of life as a consequence is so final.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit


I sort of agree, except that the unlit cyclist is not an immobile object and can/will move from a shadowy area that you obviously wouldn't drive into at speed into a place where they are visible to be seen but too late for avoiding action (the proverbial 'they came from nowhere!'). That doesn't mean the driver was driving too quickly to stop in the road they could see to be clear.

EDIT: It is also quite unusual to find an unlit tree in the middle of a road.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit



A cyclist is part of the traffic as another vehicle and as such a lot more common on the roads than sheep...there are also warning signs when sheep or other animals are likely to be on the roads. You appear to argue that cyclists should be able to cycle wherever under any conditions and if they come a cropper, then it will always be someone elses fault ?

Laws appear to be made for other people in your book. Don't you feel that cyclists as a group would command more respect if the odd one didn't come out with this sort of nonsense ?


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

I like Skol said:


> EDIT: It is also quite unusual to find an unlit tree in the middle of a road.


There were loads of them around here a week ago.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> A cyclist is part of the traffic as another vehicle and as such a lot more common on the roads than sheep


If that's supposed to be an argument that driving into a cyclist is less bad than driving into a sheep, I don't think it's a very good one.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> If that's supposed to be an argument that driving into a cyclist is less bad than driving into a sheep, I don't think it's a very good one.



How many herd or flock animals do you see on your daily commute in London ?


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> How many herd or flock animals do you see on your daily commute in London ?


 Do peds flooding out of a tube station into a road count?


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

If I have decent night vision should I be able to drive a car with no lights on? Surely if people don't see me coming they're going to fast.

Also if you're cycling at night, lights are not just about your safety. If you're trying to cross a road, a cyclist in black with no lights is very hard to spot especially as they make no noise. One of the few times you can't complain about a ped stepping in front of you!


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> Do peds flooding out of a tube station into a road count?



Flooding is indicative of a lot of them. Peds by and large are only on the road because they are crossing it, not because they travel on it....unlike cyclists. I use my lights day and night on the cycle, motorcycle and in the car. I've had idiots cut across in front of me in cars when cycling, but not because they didn't see me, but more than they thought I was moving more slowly than I actually was.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2755249, member: 1314"]Bambies in RP innit

Don't need a front light in London, from Zone 1 through to Zone 5, on roads with streetlights. I've cycled home twice this week at night, 15 miles, no front light, no hi viz. I did the same a week or so back as well. My top does have white stripes which, I guess, can act as reflectors. Cars ahead/on side roads saw me just fine.
Need a front light for RP at night, though, to see, and to make sure the bambis dodge you.[/quote]

RP?


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Flooding is indicative of a lot of them. *Peds by and large are only on the road because they are crossing it, not because they travel on it..*..unlike cyclists. I use my lights day and night on the cycle, motorcycle and in the car. I've had idiots cut across in front of me in cars when cycling, but not because they didn't see me, but more than they thought I was moving more slowly than I actually was.



I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.

Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.
> 
> Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?


 
Might just be you. I just can't be bothered typing out pedestrians repeatedly.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2755259, member: 1314"]Richmond Park[/quote]
It all makes sense now! I thought you were using some bizarre rhyming slang I'd never heard of


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.
> 
> Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?




Of course, I'm never a ped...ever....Jeez Claudine will you get over yourself
You make out that being a pedestrian is part of an exclusive club


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> Might just be you. I just can't be bothered typing out pedestrians repeatedly.


It must just be a coincidence then that it is, in my observation, mainly used by those who are complaining people being in their way.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> It must just be a coincidence then that it is, in my observation, mainly used by those who are complaining people being in their way.


It must be


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Of course, I'm never a ped...ever....*Jeez Claudine will you get over yourself*
> You make out that being a pedestrian is part of an exclusive club



I'm seeking guidance from @Adrian's example in that respect.

And I am making out quite the opposite of what you suggest. As ever.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

I like Skol said:


> EDIT: It is also quite unusual to find an unlit tree in the middle of a road.





Dan B said:


> There were loads of them around here a week ago.


 


I like Skol said:


> It is but, as I suggested several posts ago, it will be hijacked by those who like a good argument in the face of reason!


See what I mean?


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> I would certainly not argue for a reduction in compensation because of High Viz for peds, *but I do feel that we all have a responsibility to keep ourselves from harm. The notion of compensation is a sideshow when the loss of life as a consequence is so final*.



yet cyclists and pedestrians that do make themselves more visible by using lights, reflectors or hi-viz still get knocked down and/or killed by those in control of motor vehicles... and those drivers continue to claim 'it wasn't my fault', 'i didn't see them' as if their failure to pay proper attention is of no consequence.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> How many herd or flock animals do you see on your daily commute in London ?


None at all


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> Also if you're cycling at night, lights are not just about your safety. If you're trying to cross a road, a cyclist in black with no lights is very hard to spot especially as they make no noise. One of the few times you can't complain about a ped stepping in front of you!


I'n not really seeing how whether the cyclist is invisible really makes that much difference to whether it's ok for them to ride their bikes into pedestrians or not. For the avoidance of doubt: it isn't ok.

If you'd said "leap out" you might have a point, but a pedestrian stepping out into the roadway is a long way from being the fastest or most unpredictable thing you might encounter while cycling.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> It all makes sense now! I thought you were using some bizarre rhyming slang I'd never heard of



Richmond Park = Cycle in the Dark innit


----------



## Poacher (7 Nov 2013)

Not often (possibly ever?) I like a Linf post, but gotta give him this one!


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> yet cyclists and pedestrians that do make themselves more visible by using lights, reflectors or hi-viz still get knocked down and/or killed by those in control of motor vehicles... and those drivers continue to claim 'it wasn't my fault', 'i didn't see them' as if their failure to pay proper attention is of no consequence.



Not too sure how many witness statements you have made over the years for RTA's (or indeed attended court as a witness), but the first things which are asked are What time of day did it happen, what was the visibility like, did the victim have their vehicle lights on.....they look to rule out mitigating factors in the defence in that the victim may have been in poor visibility and not illuminated properly. I've been there a few times now so am familiar with the drill (as a victim or as a prosecution witness)


----------



## 400bhp (7 Nov 2013)

I do wonder whther 3 of the poster/viewer's here are joined at the hip


----------



## 400bhp (7 Nov 2013)

Might go out tonight playin chicken on the A56.

Anyone fancy it? It's my right innit. 

Must remember to teach my 4 year old the one about the right to play on the road too.


----------



## Dan B (7 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Might go out tonight playin chicken on the A56.


It sounds appealing, but I've only just got back from dazzling pedestrians in the beam of my headlights while bearing down on them at full speed and causing them to jump out of the roadway. Nearly winged a couple, too, but it was their fault for jumping the wrong way: they must have known I was there after I airzounded them


----------



## 400bhp (7 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> It sounds appealing, but I've only just got back from dazzling pedestrians in the beam of my headlights while bearing down on them at full speed and causing them to jump out of the roadway. Nearly winged a couple, too, but it was their fault for jumping the wrong way: they must have known I was there after I airzounded them



Airzound and nobbber peds in one go.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Nov 2013)

2756151 said:


> You are making the basic mistake of confusing a desire to see other people take proper responsibility for the risk they bring to the roads for a desire to abrogate responsibility ourselves. There is a simple test you could employ. If you find yourself about to post something broadly in agreement with what Linf thinks, stop, sit back and have a bit of a think about it.



You are of the presumption that I believe that responsibility is an absolute, in that all the liability is with that with the greater risk, in this case the drivers.

I don't think that.

I'd prefer legal responsibilty to be first with that which carries the greatest risk but that would not absolve individual's for taking respnsibility for themselves.


----------



## Linford (7 Nov 2013)

2756151 said:


> You are making the basic mistake of confusing a desire to see other people take proper responsibility for the risk they bring to the roads for a desire to abrogate responsibility ourselves. There is a simple test you could employ. If you find yourself about to post something broadly in agreement with what Linf thinks, stop, sit back and have a bit of a think about it.



Will you listen to yourself.....you would cut off your nose to spite your face if you thought it might agree with something I posted.
This actually says a lot more about you as a person than me as a poster.
You have become a caricature of yourself Adrian, a walking, talking joke


----------



## I like Skol (7 Nov 2013)

I like Skol said:


> ......it will be hijacked by those who like a good argument in the face of reason!


----------



## I like Skol (8 Nov 2013)

2756391 said:


> You appear to be sitting in the corner talking to yourself there.


 Just standing back and taking an overview of the position being taken by the usual suspects......


----------



## I like Skol (8 Nov 2013)

2756411 said:


> But can't resit telling us that that is what you are doing, thus spoiling the standing back bit.


 Have you ever heard the expression "could cause an argument in an empty room"?


----------



## RedRider (8 Nov 2013)

J.Primus said:


> Might just be you. I just can't be bothered typing out pedestrians repeatedly.


No, 'peds' is disdainful. It's context is nearly always pedestrians getting in the way or being clueless or a nuisance.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

I look after myself and mine. We are lit up like Christmas trees at this time of the year, and we are in Denmark where we spend 90% of time on cycle paths away from the traffic. In the summer we usually wear viz vests.

The police are very keen on making sure we are light up and regularly stop cyclists who are not.

Having said that I nearly ran into a dog walker on 2 consecutive days last week. She was dressed in black with a black dog at 5.30am. On the second day I stopped and gave her a small clip on rear light which I had in my bag and she wears it every day now.

I think if you dont light up at this time of the year and you get run over, you only have yourself to blame. I have no sympathy.


Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

Tiny,

If people want to ride around in the dark and get splattered by big trucks or cars, who am I to complain? This is not inhumane. They know the risks and have known the risks for years but cannot be bothered to do anything about it. If they are run over because they cannot be seen, whos fault is it?

But I do have sympathy for the driver who has to live with the fact that they have killed someone because of no fault of their own.

And as for "doing ok". Do you really think I care if you approve or not? Keep your holier than thou attitude because it doesnt have any pull with me.

I say what I think and dont talk round the houses to avoid upsetting delicate souls.

Steve


----------



## Dan B (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> This is not inhumane


Pro tip: asserting something to be true does not make it true


----------



## Markymark (8 Nov 2013)

....yet another thread descending into tedious name calling.


----------



## J.Primus (8 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> No, 'peds' is disdainful. It's context is nearly always pedestrians getting in the way or being clueless or a nuisance.


It might be when you use it. I just use it as shorthand. Hard to be too disdainful as I've even been known to walk places myself


----------



## theclaud (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I say what I think and dont talk round the houses *to avoid upsetting delicate souls.*



Don't worry. If necessary we will rush to TMN's side with the smelling-salts.


----------



## theclaud (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> But I do have sympathy for the driver who has to live with the fact that *they have killed someone because of no fault of their own.*



No fault? The poor dears. If only simple means of avoiding such misery were available to them - such as slowing down, anticipating the presence of others and/or simply looking where they are going before rolling lethal heavy machinery into or over flesh and bone, eh?


----------



## StuUngar (8 Nov 2013)

Anecdote. I was riding down a quiet road at night, with lights, no cars about. I then noticed a red flashing light coming towards me on the other side of the road NOT on the pavement.

Yes, you guessed it, this cretin was actually riding into traffic, on the road with a REAR light on his handlebars! I am certain he was foreign as there are loads where we live, but still. What a ***t!

True story.


----------



## StuUngar (8 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2757028, member: 1314"]So you saw him? That's good.[/quote]

Yes but a car is surely going to think that he was coming towards the back - not head on!


----------



## theclaud (8 Nov 2013)

2757053 said:


> You know, one of your lot innit. People from South Essex.


He might have been Welsh. I saw someone with a red light on the front on the Mumbles bike path once.


----------



## StuUngar (8 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2757045, member: 1314"]...anyway, what's the foreigner thing got to do with it, *even *if he was a foreigner? What you mean by a foreigner, anyway?[/quote]

I mean he was foreign - from another country -not a hard concept to grasp is it?

Maybe in his country red lights at the front and cycling into traffic is what they do...


----------



## theclaud (8 Nov 2013)

2757078 said:


> What would constitute foreign in that context? Should I swap all lights front to back next time I cross the water?


Come to think of it, I've decided the muppet on the bike path was probably English.


----------



## theclaud (8 Nov 2013)

2757094 said:


> Did he/she look foreign then?


Kinda shifty.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (8 Nov 2013)

Does anyone experiencing the self-switching-off-in-the-rain effect of Smart 1/2 Watts for the first time not deserve the _teeniest _bit of sympathy if they get squished after setting off with a good bright light and fresh batteries?


----------



## Dan B (8 Nov 2013)

> If people want to ride around in the dark and get splattered by big trucks or cars, who am I to complain? This is not inhumane. They know the risks and have known the risks for years but cannot be bothered to do anything about it. If they are run over because they ride around on intrinsically unstable bicycles with no safety features or crumple zones, whos(sic) fault is it?


Trouble is, once you start saying "it's your own fault because you didn't take all reasonable steps to workaround other peoples failures", where do you draw the line? If everyone sets out to be brighter than average, better encased than average, more circumspect than average, in a few years time the "average" will have shifted and people will be blaming cyclists for getting run over because they only had hi-viz, 1W rear light, and dual CREE XML-6superwhiz lights on the front, but didn't have the additional backpack light, helmet light, fluoro shoes, 3m scotchguard spokes, millimetre wave radio transmitters and radar corner reflectors that the "safe" cyclists will all be sporting. 

It's an arms race


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

Theclaud. I live in the wilds of Denmark. At 5am when I go to work it is pitch black out there. It is so dark I use a head torch to get to the car, when I drive. There are so many deer between home and work that I take it very steadily. I drive 18km to work and all but the last 1km is in total darkness and down country lanes.

Last week I almost run a woman over walking a dog. She was all in black with a black dog, walking away from me on my side of the road. This could quite easily have been a cyclist with no lights.

In your opinion, when do you think the pedestrian or cyclist has a responsability for their own safety or am I expected to drive everywhere at 10km an hour in the dark, just because some stupid, idle cyclist or pedestrian wont make themselves visible.

I am also a cyclist. But really cant understand this idea you appear to have that everything is the responsability of the motorist and not the cyclist.

Dan,

I really dont think that is an argument. Good effective lighting is cheap and easy to find, you dont even have to get out of your chair to buy it. All I am saying it is our own responsibility to fit it to our bikes and use it. Just as important is that if you have children, you teach them about lighting up and make sure they do it. How many deaths are we going to read about this year where the bike did not have lights? Some of them are avoidable. It is not a degree of how bright you are and never will be. But it is not just the car drivers responsibility to see us. It is also our responsibility to be seen.

Adrian, sorry but it appears to me that they were saying just that. Unless I read it wrong.

"No fault? The poor dears. If only simple means of avoiding such misery were available to them - such as slowing down, anticipating the presence of others and/or simply looking where they are going before rolling lethal heavy machinery into or over flesh and bone, eh?"

Steve


----------



## Linford (8 Nov 2013)

2757150 said:


> No, we are employing a zero tolerance policy here. Similarly I had only myself to blame the other day, when *some twat rode into the back of me at a set of lights breaking the wire to my rear light,* something I didn't spot at the time.



Did you chase him for recompense, and if not, would you expect recompense for the damage he did to your light ?


----------



## ShipHill (8 Nov 2013)

User13710 said:


> I'll try one last time - No one has said cyclists don't need to use lights, or shouldn't use them. Something Steve and Adrian have in common seems to be a generous tendency to give away lights to unlit people. The part that is contentious is the 'only have yourself to blame' part, which is so wrong and inhumane it always amazes me that cyclists, on a cycling forum, resort to it.





2754707 said:


> Pragmatically they are obviously better off if they have lights but they *shouldn't have to have them*. Unfortunately that argument was given up in 1920 something, so we are left with the pragmatic.



I think it's stuff like the bit I bolded that some folks have an issue with. I must admit that I'm not sure what the thrust of this is.

Apologies for being a thickie.


----------



## DrLex (8 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2757273, member: 45"]People, we're all on the same side here. Yes, cyclists should be responsible to light themselves up at night and yes car drivers should remain fully alert at all times. That's all there is to it really.[/quote]
How can this argument get to ten pages or more if you insist on bringing logic & sense back in to it?


----------



## Dan B (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I really dont think that is an argument. Good effective lighting is cheap and easy to find, you dont even have to get out of your chair to buy it.


But the lighting which is currently considered effective is only effective because it stands out against the current visual background. When everyone and his dog has dual 1W red LEDs on their backside, the road users who stand out will be the ones with 3W and a fibre flare and a full suit of 3m Scotchlite and a pair of flashing amber viking horns coming out of their helmet, and the poor sod who gets run over because he "only" has the legally required lights will be blamed for being the author of his own misfortune.

Pedestrians used to be advised in the HC to wear light colours at night. Now they're told to wear hi-viz, because merely wearing a white t-shirt doesn't make them stand out against the background any more when everyone else is brighter.


----------



## HLaB (8 Nov 2013)

8 pages and still nobody has explained what blasted lights are; one you find in a quarry ?


----------



## Origamist (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Theclaud. I live in the wilds of Denmark. At 5am when I go to work it is pitch black out there. It is so dark I use a head torch to get to the car, when I drive. There are so many deer between home and work that I take it very steadily. I drive 18km to work and all but the last 1km is in total darkness and down country lanes.
> 
> Last week I almost run a woman over walking a dog. She was all in black with a black dog, walking away from me on my side of the road. *This could quite easily have been a cyclist with no lights.*
> 
> Steve



Or a deer! Those beasts should have lights attached to their hindquarters, hoof reflectors and _Hope_ snout lights. I say this as drivers can often get splattered when colliding with large animals. I do have sympathy for the deer who might have to live with the fact they have killed someone through no fault of their own...

I say what I think and don't talk round the houses to avoid upsetting delicate souls.


----------



## ShipHill (8 Nov 2013)

I farkin give up.


----------



## ShipHill (8 Nov 2013)

I was just trying to grasp the whole "lights at night" argument and I'm failing to follow the reasoning behind certain statements. Internet threads rarely follow the same lines than if we were all in the same room having tea and biccies.


----------



## J.Primus (8 Nov 2013)

ShipHill said:


> I was just trying to grasp the whole "lights at night" argument and I'm failing to follow the reasoning behind certain statements. Internet threads rarely follow the same lines than if we were all in the same room having tea and biccies.


 Essentially everyone agrees you should have lights on at night, except for those who dont, but they didn't say you shouldn't need them, except where they did, and if they did you read it wrong or something.
Hope that helps


----------



## ShipHill (8 Nov 2013)

I usually read stuff wrong.


----------



## Linford (8 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2758278, member: 1314"]I've been riding with no front light on, not for the sake of it, but because I remembered an argument that was posited by a slightly overweight, ex-truck driving, accountant who is a very good cyclist (  ) some while back who said that it made it not safer as such, but that on street lit roads you had to be that much more aware of what was happening in front, rather than relying on drivers etc seeing you. I can recommend the merit in that argument, though I would recommend that there are reflective bits on the front of the clothing, but not on the bike itself because that's sacrosanct.[/quote]

You don't recall the story of how a rider locally lost his life ? 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4134206.stm


----------



## theclaud (10 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> You don't recall the story of how a rider locally lost his life ?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4134206.stm



I've read that quite carefully and I can't see any link whatever with what CoG posted. Could you explain?


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I've read that quite carefully and I can't see any link whatever with what CoG posted. Could you explain?



His death was avoidable by simply using a front light. The car which pulled out on him on a hill above where he lived had no idea that he and his brother were going hell for leather (35-40mph) on a unlit road at 10:30pm. I can't understand why someone would spend so much money on cycling gear and not bother sticking a light on the bike. The driver was absolved of any liability for his death.
COG thinks its clever to ride around in the dark without lights...I say you have to give others a chance to see you if they are to avoid you. I'd rather learn from other people mistakes....he died needlessly.


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2758278, member: 1314"]on street lit roads [/quote]


Linford said:


> on a unlit road


I'm also not sure I see much point asking, but I dont think this was an answer


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> I'm also not sure I see much point asking, but I dont think this was an answer



The law states you must use lights when cycling in the dark. Street lights or no street lights these laws have been written for good reason.
If the cars headlights are not illuminating you, you cannot expect them to see you.
They are not just so you can see where you are going, but also that others can see you.
What if all car drivers adopted this attitude that they were too lazy to turn their lights on ?

Only an idiot would argue this point.


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> The law states you must use lights when cycling in the dark. Street lights or no street lights these laws have been written for good reason.
> If the cars headlights are not illuminating you, you cannot expect them to see you.
> They are not just so you can see where you are going, but also that others can see you.
> What if all car drivers adopted this attitude that htey were too lazy to turn their lights on ?
> ...


I've read that quite carefully and I can't see any link whatever with what CoG posted. 

You may however be quite correct with your second para, though perhaps not for the reasons you assume


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> I've read that quite carefully and I can't see any link whatever with what CoG posted.
> 
> You may however be quite correct with your second para, though perhaps not for the reasons you assume



COG is wrong...the law states he is wrong 



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



'Must' isn't negotiable, and is defined in the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 as amended

This sense of entitlement that people who cycle should be above the law really is quite ridiculous when the same people demand so much from other road users. People like that twit Rod Liddle paint with a broad brush.... stoop to his level when making unreasonable demands like this, and you can't realistically hold him in contempt.


----------



## I like Skol (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761506, member: 45"]Why only reserved for for cyclists linf? What of drivers who sense entitlement enough to drive at whatever speed they wish? Or motorbikelists who enjoy 'giving it beans'?[/quote]
I don't think Linford is claiming to be above the law. I'm sure if he was caught breaking the law or came unstuck as a result of said digressions he would not be looking around for someone else to blame but would hold up his hands and accept his error? There's the difference.


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2013)

CoG's accountant said:


> [riding without a front light is] not safer as such, but that on street lit roads you had to be that much more aware of what was happening in front, rather than relying on drivers etc seeing you. I can recommend the merit in that argument,





Linford said:


> COG is wrong...the law states he is wrong



You know, I don't think the law says _anything at all_ about whether riding without a front light makes you more aware of what's going on around you, or not. In fact, if you can quote the relevant Act and section then I'll contribute a tenner to your charity of choice

I am equally if not more sure that your sad tale of a unlit cyclist in Cloucestershire killed on an unlit road by a driver who didn't see him coming has nothing to do with the point CoG was making either. No money on offer for that one, though, as you've already been asked to explain and have instead tried to change the subject


----------



## I like Skol (10 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> .......... your sad tale of a unlit cyclist in Cloucestershire killed on an unlit road by a driver who didn't see him coming ........


 That is not a fair statement! From the information available to us in this thread and the news report linked to there is no suggestion that the cyclist was killed by the driver of the vehicle he collided with. Unless you have additional information to support your claim I suggest you a withdraw your comment. Statements like yours really do not do the cycling community any favours. Sometimes drivers get it wrong and sometimes cyclists get it wrong. To always portray the driver as guilty is wrong.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761506, member: 45"]Why only reserved for for cyclists linf? What of drivers who sense entitlement enough to drive at whatever speed they wish? Or motorbikelists who enjoy 'giving it beans'?[/quote]

That would be you who stated that they would happily drive on the motorway at an indicated 75mph because the police threshhold is actually 10% +2mph (79mph) . When I pointed out that a speedo isn't allowed to under read, and you 'actually' were doing 75mph when the speedo indicated it, you went very quiet.

I got caught speeding, I held my hands up and paid the fine....it is you who is in denial about your indiscretion's whilst you try and foist your guilt onto others (like this little gem ^ )


----------



## snorri (10 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> What if all car drivers adopted this attitude that they were too lazy to turn their lights on ?.


 
It would be wonderful on unlit roads, they would all be driving slowly and concentrating on where they were going.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761536, member: 1314"]No he wouldn't. Not true. Ask him about deliberately causing a rta. It was on the filtering thread. He quickly deleted the post when the illegality of his actions was pointed out.[/quote]
I explained what had happened, and that I braked when the idiot tried overtaking in a red mist moment after he risked both himself, his partner, the car coming the other way, and me when he puffed his chest out.
I was perfectly calm, and TBH bemused by his loss of self control....he came unstuck and I have zero sympathy for him. He shouldn't be behind the wheel if he can't keep his temper in check.

You seem to be prone to these moments as well. Perhaps it is just as well you cycle most of the time as at least that then limits the damage you might do to others when you go off on one.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> It would be wonderful on unlit roads, they would all be driving slowly and concentrating on where they were going.



Or crashing into other vehicles, driving into ditches, road furniture, or running other road users and people over who might not be able to see or hear them coming.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761582, member: 45"]That's not how the story went, regardless of how much you'd like it to have. Be careful -the lies you tell, coupled with your misunderstanding of physics, have caught you out.* We all know that speedos cannot under-read*. Because they're not 100% accurate the tolerance of error has to be designed in over-read. It's the %age of over-read that means that at 70mph you're likely to be driving more slowly than your speedo reads. Easily demonstrated by using a more accurate speed measure at the same time.

Anyway, as you were.....[/quote]

You clearly didn't Paul, that is why you shut up when I caught you out


----------



## I like Skol (10 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> Perhaps it is just as well you cycle most of the time as at least that then limits the damage you might do to others when you go off on one.


This thought occurred to me a few days ago after contributing to this thread. God forbid some of the people adding comments to this thread should ever get behind the wheel! The attitude that some seem to demonstrate of they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong does not really make for a good road user. The concede or die approach is very worrying and most unattractive.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761591, member: 45"]You did boastfully suggest that you braked deliberately, knowing that he was unlikely to be able to stop.[/quote]

You mean to say that in his red mist moment he might have been tail gating me...and that is my fault ?

Police turned up and they set him straight on this point of issue....he was lucky he didn't get a ticket for undue care and attention..I might have put in a claim for the paint he scraped off my tow bar. That could have easily cost him a couple of ££££ if I got the insurance co's involved.


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761600, member: 45"]Read it again, until the penny drops. You're mixing up your overs and unders.[/quote]

You clearly got caught bang to rights..


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761615, member: 45"]Read it again.....

(The longer it takes you to realise your error the more foolish you'll look. I strongly suggest that you understand your error before posting again, for your sake)[/quote]


I think you need to read it again

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/ho...speed-limit-while-driving.100448/post-1919687


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761611, member: 45"]No, I mean to say that you bragged that you 'saw something in the road' and 'had to brake', clearly suggesting that you'd deliberately braked in order to cause the collision.[/quote]

Here, this is the post from back when it happened. You seem to be siding with road ragers using cars as weapons now...is there any limit to how low you might stoop to gain brownie points ?



Linford said:


> Well, actually, I was minding my own business having just dropped one of the horses off and was making my way back home. The pinch point is always a scrum, and there are always chancers who try to come banging up the outside. He actually drew level with me before that point, and then swerved towards me in an attempt to force me to brake and give way. I wasn't going to be bullied so I held my ground and he had to capitulate. After the pinch point, I looked in my mirror and saw him with both hands off the wheel giving me the bird. We carried on until I reached the turning, I indicated, slowed and as I made my turn saw him in the middle of the main road. I gave him a smile and a wink as so to gesture that I held no hard feelings, and he then totally lost it and swerved in. With another car coming the other way, and 3 of us on collision course, I took the call to brake and let him through. How was I to know that he had decided at that point to tuck in behind me instead of hitting the other car head on.
> 
> He was very angry, and the first thing his girlfriend did was call the police and he went a proper shade of beetroot as he jumped up and down in the road at my drivers window.
> I had the dog in the car with me, so I thought best to stay calm until the police turned up.
> ...


----------



## Linford (10 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> I think you need to read it again
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/ho...speed-limit-while-driving.100448/post-1919687



Read it again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer, it is quite clear that you are wrong...and in denial.

Anyway, it's late and I've clearly won this one...don't let that impotent rage keep you up, it isn't healthy


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2013)

I like Skol said:


> That is not a fair statement! From the information available to us in this thread and the news report linked to there is no suggestion that the cyclist was killed by the driver of the vehicle he collided with. Unless you have additional information to support your claim I suggest you a withdraw your comment. Statements like yours really do not do the cycling community any favours. Sometimes drivers get it wrong and sometimes cyclists get it wrong. To always portray the driver as guilty is wrong.


He was alive, then he was in collision with a car, and now he is dead. I did not mean to ascribe any fault or guilt to any party involved (and without a bit more information than Linf's report, frankly I wouldn't even speculate), but the sad fact remains that he was killed.

It still has the square root of bugger all to do with what CoG was talking about, though.


----------



## I like Skol (10 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> ...... * killed on an unlit road by a driver* who didn't see him coming.....





Dan B said:


> .......but the sad fact remains that he was *killed*.


You did ascribe blame and then went on to repeat your accusation even when you said you weren't. He died, we don't know if he was killed by anyone other than himself.


----------



## theclaud (10 Nov 2013)

I like Skol said:


> You did ascribe blame and then went on to repeat your accusation even when you said you weren't. He died, we don't know if he was killed by anyone other than himself.


Yes - we do. One click away from the link tells you that he was struck by a Citroen Xsara. The person driving it killed him.


----------



## drewc65 (11 Nov 2013)

I can only apologise for starting this thread. It really was a rant and that day I was just peeded off at riders with no lights. This seemed to have stirred up a bit of a Hornets nest and so can we all not agree to disagree and put this post to rest. As we cannot change the way other people think and behave.


----------



## Mugshot (11 Nov 2013)

2762104 said:


> we all use lights.


And there was me under the impression that some people relied on the glow of the sun shining out of their own backsides.


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

2762104 said:


> But you can. You could talk to them and give them some advice and/or a cheap set of flashers if they bother you. Way more useful than ranting on a cycling forum where, COG aside, we all use lights.



They would give the same response as COG - eff off, I know best.
Natural selection will sort it, and then they will bleat that it was someone else's fault...like the rest of the nonsense which is spouted forth.


----------



## shunter (11 Nov 2013)

I have checked several of my motorcycles over the years with a Garmin Zumo and the speedos have always read higher than the actual speed on the GPS unit which I assume to be more accurate i.e. 75MPH was 70MPH on the GPS.Am I right in assuming that? This was the same with all the cars we have had but with great surprise I noted that my latest BMW 1200GS motorcycle is 'balls on accurate'. German technology or quality control!


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2761887, member: 45"]You're up now. Avoiding the thread because you've realised your error? That if you're travelling at an indicated 75mph your actual speed cannot be more than 75mph and because of the way your speedo is designed it's likely that you're travelling nearer 65 and less than 70?

Oh, and I don't do rage. Never have. I can't be bothered.[/quote]

What you are missing here is that you have stated on many occasions that you don't speed, and vilify any who do. 
That you have admitted putting 75 on the clock when driving on the motorway means that there is a real possibility that you are actually really exceeding the 70 limit, and are relying on the tolerance which the police apply when deciding if you are going to get a ticket.

That makes you as much a criminal as someone getting caught at 85, 95, 105 etc etc...It is a limit, not a target 

About the 'I don't do rage' thing.....I'll bet your missus could tell a different story 

Oh to be a fly on the wall when you are behind the wheel


----------



## 400bhp (11 Nov 2013)




----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2763427, member: 45"]So have you realised your glaring error in understanding a simple technical matter?[/quote]


We can recap on this one where you actually said



> I used to speed. Then I grew up.
> 
> In 30 & 30 limits there's no reason not to stay below the limit, and plenty of reasons to obey it.
> 
> ...



if the vehicle is actually travelling at 50 mph, the speedometer must not show more than 61.25 mph or less than 50 mph.

This means that if you are driving at a true 75mph, then your speedo must not show less than that figure on the dial but can incidentally and legally also read higher than that figure - you have no idea if the speedo is reading accurately or over so that makes you a bit of a chancer doesn't it when you say you drive at an indicated 75mph - see above ^ 

When was the last time you had your speedo calibrated ?


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2763484, member: 45"]I repeat... Where?[/quote]

Do you, or do you not cruise at an indicated 75 on the motorway as you have indicated you did back in 2012 ?


----------



## nappadang (11 Nov 2013)

drewc65 said:


> Passed 3 people today with no lights on. This was between 05.00 and 05.15 this morning and on an unlit road. One didn't even have any hi viz at all. What is wrong with them do they think their bullet proof or something. Lights don't cost a fortune. The one with no hi viz on I almost hit and I was on my bike. IDIOTS ! ( rant over with )


Similar story for me at 6am today. 6 cyclists and four with no lights at all. One of these idiots looked like he was auditioning for a remake of the Milk Tray adverts, completely dressed in black (or very dark) clothing. 
How these bull's lugs survive is beyond me.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Nov 2013)

nappadang said:


> Similar story for me at 6am today. 6 cyclists and four with no lights at all. One of these idiots looked like he was auditioning for a remake of the Milk Tray adverts, completely dressed in black (or very dark) clothing.
> How these bull's lugs survive is beyond me.




Yet they do survive...
The poor souls that seem not to survive seem to be 'experienced' commuters/cyclists


----------



## 400bhp (11 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Yet they do survive...
> The poor souls that seem not to survive seem to be 'experienced' commuters/cyclists



Just stats I suspect mate - experience = longer in the saddle so a greater period of being at risk.


----------



## nappadang (11 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Yet they do survive...
> The poor souls that seem not to survive seem to be 'experienced' commuters/cyclists


I'm beginning to see this sadly, is often the case.


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2763488, member: 45"]Show me where I've indicated that...[/quote]

You are certainly condoning it....in fact encouraging others to do it...they might call that 'accessory to a crime' in a court of Law

MisterP said it was OK to do 75 on Cyclechat so I believed him and did it (Your Honour)

Perhaps you can clarify if what you are encouraging others to do, you actually do yourself...or not ?


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2763530, member: 45"]I'm each of those three sentences you've at least one claim. Have a go, but you'll not be able to justify any of them...[/quote]



> *On the motorway, traffic generally doesn't flow as quickly as some might like to claim. Stick to an indicated 75* (in reality around the 70 limit)* and you'll make good progress and need to overtake much of the traffic. *



You cannot accurately gauge the accuracy of a speedo in a car unless you have it calibrated...and nor can anyone who might have taken your advice...you are happy to break the law, and ease your guilt by encouraging others to do this as well....we're all in it together lads 

It isn't rocket science


----------



## Linford (11 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2763557, member: 45"]... Still waiting for you to indicate where I said what you think I did...

And no it's not rocket science. But you still misunderstood a very simple engineering situation.[/quote]

Which bit of this which *you* posted are you struggling to understand ?



> *Stick to an indicated 75* (in reality around the 70 limit)* and you'll make good progress and need to overtake much of the traffic.*


----------



## 400bhp (11 Nov 2013)

FFS


----------



## Shaun (11 Nov 2013)

@Linford and @User - please give it a rest or take it to PM; if not I'll be forced to remove you both from the thread for derailing.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## snorri (12 Nov 2013)

I get tired of these posts where someone says they saw a cyclist without lights and bla bla bla.
Do these people think they have particularly good eyesight and their ability to see unlit cyclists is shared with only a tiny minority of the population?
Well hear this you would be supersighters, unlit cyclists are visible to just about everyone who is moving on our roads at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
What's more, the unlit cyclist is even more visible when cars are not being driven nearby by eejit drivers who switch on their lights when they don't need lights for seeing.


Rant over


----------



## bianchi1 (12 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> unlit cyclists are visible to just about everyone who is moving on our roads at a speed appropriate to the conditions.



"Just about everyone" doesn't sound safe at all! I think it's safer to be seen by everyone.


----------



## asterix (12 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> I get tired of these posts where someone says they saw a cyclist without lights and bla bla bla.
> Do these people think they have particularly good eyesight and their ability to see unlit cyclists is shared with only a tiny minority of the population?
> Well hear this you would be supersighters, unlit cyclists are visible to just about everyone who is moving on our roads at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
> What's more, the unlit cyclist is even more visible when cars are not being driven nearby by eejit drivers who switch on their lights when they don't need lights for seeing.
> ...



Daytime running lights are something I dislike. I think most of the time they are a distraction and anyway the message they send out is a simple one: 'Get out of my way!'.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> Well hear this you would be supersighters, unlit cyclists are visible to just about everyone who is moving on our roads at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
> What's more, the unlit cyclist is even more visible when cars are not being driven nearby by eejit drivers who switch on their lights when they don't need lights for seeing.
> 
> 
> Rant over



It's not those drivers we need to worry about.


----------



## ShipHill (12 Nov 2013)

snorri said:


> What's more, the unlit cyclist is even more visible when cars are not being driven nearby by eejit drivers who switch on their lights when they don't need lights for seeing.



You mean that a car with headlights on during the daytime kind of "glares out" nearby cyclists? I see what you mean and that's a good point.


----------



## nappadang (12 Nov 2013)

Whether They are fully visible or not (I'm not convinced) the fact remains that they are breaking the law. Breaking the law and giving credence to the anti cyclist argument.


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Nov 2013)

ShipHill said:


> You mean that a car with headlights on during the daytime kind of "glares out" nearby cyclists? I see what you mean and that's a good point.



Fog lamps and those super high power lights are really bad, not to mention drivers who don't dip.


----------



## sazzaa (28 Nov 2013)

I shouted to a cyclist on the way home tonight that his lights weren't working and his response was "fark OFF" so I'm happy enough to leave them to get run over now.


----------



## RedRider (28 Nov 2013)

sazzaa said:


> I shouted to a cyclist on the way home tonight that his lights weren't working and his response was "f*** OFF" so I'm happy enough to leave them to get run over now.


*shoots from the hip*


----------

