# Colleague just rear ended on his E-Bike :(



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

He was riding in this morning along a narrow country lane which is facing the low rising sun. Doing about 12mph, and car rear ended him. He isn't badly hurt (sore knee), and managed to ride in now, but another colleague said he nearly took him out as well as the sun had made such a big contrast. He wasn't using his rear light, Dark clothing, and no any high viz.

I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of what the drivers should or shouldn't see...the bottom line is that if people don't make themselves visible at dawn and dusk, then the contrast between dark roads and bright sky is a reall challenge to the average driver, so please use your lights and give others a chance to see you.

As an aside, I'm on my PTW today, and had a 4x4 follow me without his lights on...all the other vehicles did....jusr crazy risk taking for the flick of a switch (idiot).


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)




----------



## Twelve Spokes (17 Oct 2013)




----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

No light - check.
No Hi-Viz - check.
Dark Clothing - check.
Trolling? - check.
Linford? - Check.


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> He was riding in this morning along a narrow country lane which is facing the low rising sun. Doing about 12mph, and car rear ended him. He isn't badly hurt (sore knee), and managed to ride in now, but another colleague said he nearly took him out as well as the sun had made such a big contrast. He wasn't using his rear light, Dark clothing, and no any high viz.
> 
> I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of what the drivers should or shouldn't see...the bottom line is that if people don't make themselves visible at dawn and dusk, then the contrast between dark roads and bright sky is a reall challenge to the average driver, so please use your lights and give others a chance to see you.
> 
> As an aside, I'm on my PTW today, and had a 4x4 follow me without his lights on...all the other vehicles did....jusr crazy risk taking for the flick of a switch (idiot).



-10 crap attempt - Must try harder.

Nobber.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (17 Oct 2013)

I was driving along a narrow country Lane this morning facing the low rising sun, I couldnt see proper but I just carried on anyway, I think I rear ended somone on a E-bike. Oops.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> No light - check.
> No Hi-Viz - check.
> Dark Clothing - check.
> Trolling? - check.
> Linford? - Check.



This is a colleague I've worked very closely with for 15 years. I'm not making jokes about it so I'd be grateful if you don't either.


----------



## Mickthemove (17 Oct 2013)

2715030 said:


> I'm not too good with the yellow face form of communication. What the next one on the sequence?



if you hovver your mouse over the yellowy thingies, it tells you what they are! i found that out ten seconds ago by accident!


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> -10 crap attempt - Must try harder.
> 
> Nobber.



Jeez...are you for real ?


----------



## Sara_H (17 Oct 2013)

Yes crap trolling 1/10.
For a start off, if your imaginary friend was riding into low lying sun he'd have been more viaible in dark clothing than in high viz. So the computer says NO on this occasion.


----------



## Brandane (17 Oct 2013)

Stealth mode is never clever IMHO.. Making yourself more visible to increase your chances of being seen is just common sense, is it not? Doesn't just apply to cyclists of course; I wouldn't dream of going out on my PTW (powered two wheeler?) without wearing bright colours and with headlight on, even in good visibility. Yes of course drivers SHOULD be observant enough to pick us out on foggy mornings, or into a low sun, but the fact is it only takes one of them to not see us, and it's us who get hurt or worse. There's not much consolation in being stuck with life changing injuries but able to say that it was someone elses fault.

Same goes for twonks who drive around in fog/heavy rain without dipped headlights, yet expect an HGV driver to be able to pick them out in their mirror when the back of the trailer is about 50' away, never mind the safe gap in addition to that needed to pull out safely .


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Not really sure bike lights would have helped that much either, not if the sun was directly ahead of the bike. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-illumination


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2013)

Hi viz is invisible against bright sunshine, just like ****ing aginst thunder.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Yes crap trolling 1/10.
> For a start off, if your imaginary friend was riding into low lying sun he'd have been more viaible in dark clothing than in high viz. So the computer says NO on this occasion.


If he was riding into a low sun, he would have been a silhouette and the colour of the clothing would make little difference. However if the car behind had its headlights on, any reflective strips on hi-vis clothing may have reflected. Although as in my post above, this may not have helped much. But I don't think it correct to say that he would have been more visible in dark clothing.


----------



## GrasB (17 Oct 2013)

Unless you've got 'laser beam of death' style rear lights, eg. as intense as a cars HI rear light, then a rear light going into the sun isn't going to make any difference. Also the light would need to be in the silhouette of something dark. This would be emphasise the fact that in the situation you describe dark clothing would actually me MORE visible than bright as you're increasing the contrast.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Yes crap trolling 1/10.
> For a start off, if your imaginary friend was riding into low lying sun he'd have been more viaible in dark clothing than in high viz. So the computer says NO on this occasion.




The sun has to come over a hill first....the highest one in Gloucestershire. This creates a dark zone under the horizon which you can lose a vehicle in. He said that he was head down and looking at the road because the sun whas so bright in his eyes

I just took this pic. The fall broke his headlight off and knackered the mudguards. It is a Wisper905 E bike and the battery is out for charging now.


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

2715078 said:


> Oi Mr. Mod, if you think Linf is a troll, which he undoubtedly is, why is his trollery not being addressed?




Because I am posting as me, not as a mod. Is that alright with you Adrian?


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> "There was too much light and the cyclist was a nobber for not adding to it"
> 
> Doesn't stack up to me,




If you illuminate things in a shadow, then you can see it


----------



## Globalti (17 Oct 2013)

The most dangerous combination is a low sun, head-on, a wet road and a car with a windscreen that's fogged inside with plasticiser film. This is the grey film that settles on your windows; migration of plasticiser from the trim is the last big problem the motor industry hasn't been able to solve - it's worse in new cars and diminishes as the car ages. If the driver smokes, a layer of tars will be added, further obscuring the view and increasing the tendency of the surface to hold mositure and fog up in damp conditions. If you don't clean the insides of your windows regularly you can be blind in head-on sun; few people do this so I'm not surprised your colleague got hit.


----------



## Licramite (17 Oct 2013)

if its a 4x4 that hit him its the drivers fault - its an off-road vehicle - so get off the f-in road!!


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Globalti said:


> The most dangerous combination is a low sun, head-on, a wet road and a car with a windscreen that's fogged inside with plasticiser film. This is the grey film that settles on your windows; migration of plasticiser from the trim is the last big problem the motor industry hasn't been able to solve - it's worse in new cars and diminishes as the car ages. If the driver smokes, a layer of tars will be added, further obscuring the view and increasing the tendency of the surface to hold mositure and fog up in damp conditions. If you don't clean the insides of your windows regularly you can be blind in head-on sun; few people do this so I'm not surprised your colleague got hit.



The roads were damp this morning, I'm on my PTW, so more than a bit careful on the corners. Agree with all you have said..



Licramite said:


> if its a 4x4 that hit him its the drivers fault - its an off-road vehicle - so get off the f-in road!!



Apparently it was a youngish driver in a focus


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Oct 2013)

So, anyway, you're on a Boris bike, on a cycle superhighway and you get killed by a lorry driver. How does TfL's lawyer react?
''TfL’s lawyer suggested to Mrs De Gerin-Ricard that it had been the lack of high-visibility clothing that had led to her daughter’s death.''

(Just a side note on lawyers, responsibility, victim-blaming and visibility)


----------



## Licramite (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> The roads were damp this morning, I'm on my PTW, so more than a bit careful on the corners. Agree with all you have said..
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it was a youngish driver in a focus


 
or not in focus apparently


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

I know this trolling but... Some people do go over board on the Hi Viz


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> I know this trolling but... Some people do go over board on the Hi Viz




Indeed.. urban camouflage and doesn't work at night anyway.


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> . He said that he was head down and looking at the road because the sun whas so bright in his eyes


Do you mean the cyclist was looking down or the driver, or both?
If the cyclist felt he had to look down to avoid the glare, the driver would have been exposed to the same glare and would appear to also have been looking down and therefore not seeing where he was going, in which case hi-viz or lights would have made no difference to the outcome.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (17 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> Hi viz is invisible against bright sunshine, just like ****ing aginst thunder.



I would think so.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Indeed.. urban camouflage and doesn't work at night anyway.



I'm sorry, but you have a section on here for people to post about random strangers they read about getting knocked off, but when I post about a bloke getting knocked off this morning who is sat 10ft away from me right now...I'm a troll ???


Now you have seen the damage on the bike, here is where he was knocked off and in the direction he was travelling ...see the oncoming cars are clearly under the horizon


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> Do you mean the cyclist was looking down or the driver, or both?
> If the cyclist felt he had to look down to avoid the glare, the driver would have been exposed to the same glare and would appear to also have been looking down and therefore not seeing where he was going, in which case hi-viz or lights would have made no difference to the outcome.



Cars are equipped with sun visors...either way, you still get a massive contrast


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Twelve Spokes said:


> I would think so.




Which is why you also back it up with lights


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> So, anyway, you're on a Boris bike, on a cycle superhighway and you get killed by a lorry driver. How does TfL's lawyer react?
> ''TfL’s lawyer suggested to Mrs De Gerin-Ricard that it had been the lack of high-visibility clothing that had led to her daughter’s death.''
> 
> (Just a side note on lawyers, responsibility, victim-blaming and visibility)



I'm not at all victim blaming..the car driver will bear full responsibility for the collision (and already has done) , but it is the cyclist who comes off worse for it. What I am saying is that it is a sensible thing to do to give others a chance to avoid running into you when the conditions are iffy like mornings and evenings.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> Linf's Top Tip of the Day....
> 
> When posting about accidents involving *cycles *on a *cycling *forum, DONT imply that its the *cyclists *fault.
> 
> .... you can have that one for free (I've even bolded the key words for you).




Read my last post....anyway...your strava feed is looking a lot more barren than mine lately Smeggers


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Oct 2013)

I'm glad your work colleague survived without too much damage, it could easily have ended in death. It did happen around here about a decade ago when a driver who was blinded by the sun killed half of the club run and seriously injured the rest.

So no laughing joke, despite who's posting, sometimes as a collective we can act a bit douchebag-ish.


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> I'm sorry, but you have a section on here for people to post about random strangers they read about getting knocked off, but when I post about a bloke getting knocked off this morning who is sat 10ft away from me right now...I'm a troll ???



Not a troll but you're wrong. Doing everything possible to stay safe on a bike does not exclude being hit by someone driving wrongly for the conditions and just not looking out for a bike. Of course that's all surmise but I'd be willing to bet that that is what happened. Lights and HiViz are just red herrings in that situation. Anyway, I'm glad he's OK.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> Not a troll but you're wrong. Doing everything possible to stay safe on a bike does not exclude being hit by someone driving wrongly for the conditions and just not looking out for a bike. Of course that's all surmise but I'd be willing to bet that that is what happened. Lights and HiViz are just red herrings in that situation. Anyway, I'm glad he's OK.




I'd honestly rather dazzle someone with my rear light and they see me than they run into me because they haven't because I'd not bothered to put it on. My workmate is obviously not happy that he was hit off this morning, but as he was riding in the same conditions did understand why the driver had a problem.

If something of value comes of this, when you are out and are yourself being dazzled by low sun, then vehicles approaching from behind will also be in the same position..


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> I'm glad your work colleague survived without too much damage, it could easily have ended in death. It did happen around here about a decade ago when a driver who was blinded by the sun killed half of the club run and seriously injured the rest.
> 
> So no laughing joke, despite who's posting, sometimes as a collective we can act a bit douchebag-ish.



That is terrible


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> If something of value comes of this, when you are out and are yourself being dazzled by low sun, then vehicles approaching from behind will also be in the same position..


Just on that, I already take my own precautions, which is why I think your advice is wrong. Personally I look back constantly in that situation, at nearly every car to check where they are. I stay more to the left than usual, out of the line a car may take. Vigilance is the key, not relying on being seen. I may even change my route and have done in the past. Of course even that may not help but I'd rather trust my own skills than some perceived solution.


----------



## Globalti (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> I'm sorry, but you have a section on here for people to post about random strangers they read about getting knocked off, but when I post about a bloke getting knocked off this morning who is sat 10ft away from me right now...I'm a troll ???
> 
> 
> Now you have seen the damage on the bike, here is where he was knocked off and in the direction he was travelling ...see the oncoming cars are clearly under the horizon
> ...



A straight, fast stretch of road, not very wide, heading straight into the rising sun. Drivers in a line of fast-moving cars would need very good observation or advance warning of a cyclist needing a metre or so of road space so I'm not surprised the accident happened.


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

bromptonfb said:


> I'm glad your work colleague survived without too much damage, it could easily have ended in death. It did happen around here about a decade ago when a driver who was blinded by the sun killed half of the club run and seriously injured the rest.
> 
> So no laughing joke, despite who's posting, sometimes as a collective we can act a bit* douchebag*-ish.



Give over, are you 12?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> Give over, are you 12?



So out of that post you choose to reply like that? What are you an insensitive douchebag?


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> Just on that, I already take my own precautions, which is why I think your advice is wrong. Personally I look back constantly in that situation, at nearly every car to check where they are. I stay more to the left than usual, out of the line a car may take. Vigilance is the key, not relying on being seen. I may even change my route and have done in the past. Of course even that may not help but I'd rather trust my own skills than some perceived solution.



The roads around here are very narrow as you can see from that pic, and the verge on either side there isn't a verge, it is a 3ft deep drainage ditch.

As an aside, I have devised a training run for myself which involves a 800ft of climbing up a cat 4 hill, and then a descent down a cat3 one. I rode it yesterday evening in rush hour traffic and I was clocking about 45 in a 50 limit with solid double white lines on the downhill. I had about a dozen cars crossing these solid lines whilst I was doing that speed as they were desperate to overtake me to join the line of cars in front doing a similar speed to me. There are plenty of instances I can recount of cars doing stupid things, but these overtakes ont he downhill were all willful and deliberate stupidity...the rear ending guy caught my colleague this morning also displayed bad judgement...but willful stupidity like I experienced last night ???

What do you think ?


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> when I post about a bloke getting knocked off this morning who is sat 10ft away from me right now...I'm a troll ???
> here is where he was knocked off and in the .direction he was travelling ...


 
A sun visor in a car is of little help when the sun is below the bottom of the visor.
I'm afraid it does look as if you are trolling Linf.
A driver runs into the back of a cyclist on a straight road and you place blame on the cyclist?
. There might have been just a smidgin of an excuse if the driver had been blinded temporarlily on rounding a bend, but on a straght road?
I hope you are showing the contents of this thread to the victim.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> Give over, are you 12?


What description would you prefer?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Oct 2013)

Mugshot said:


> What description would you prefer?


Had to think about that...Ha! Good one.


----------



## fossyant (17 Oct 2013)

I'll just pop my 2p in the jar.

When the sun is low at this time of year and in Spring, you've got to cover your ar$e. I saw two cyclists within a week knocked off at the same junction due to low sun/poor driver attention.

I run with my lights on in these conditions, and I do have "laser beams of death" on the rear and front. 

The driver in this case was still at fault.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> As an aside, I have devised a training run for myself which involves a 800ft of climbing up a cat 4 hill, and then a descent down a cat3 one. I rode it yesterday evening in rush hour traffic and I was clocking about 45 in a 50 limit with solid double white lines on the downhill. I had about a dozen cars crossing these solid lines whilst I was doing that speed as they were desperate to overtake me to join the line of cars in front doing a similar speed to me. There are plenty of instances I can recount of cars doing stupid things, but these overtakes ont he downhill were all willful and deliberate stupidity...the rear ending guy caught my colleague this morning also displayed bad judgement...


It's an immutable law of the universe that cars are faster than bikes, therefore the bike in front must be overtaken - regardless of safety or any mere man-made earthly law - if you don't want to upset the entire world order.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> A sun visor in a car is of little help when the sun is below the bottom of the visor.
> I'm afraid it does look as if you are trolling Linf.
> A driver runs into the back of a cyclist on a straight road and you place blame on the cyclist?
> . There might have been just a smidgin of an excuse if the driver had been blinded temporarlily on rounding a bend, but on a straght road?
> I hope you are showing the contents of this thread to the victim.



Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?

Let me spell it out 'IF YOU RUN INTO THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR FAULT'' This is generally accepted in a court of law.

Also in the mix is that we all have a duty of care to ourselves which really is more relevant that when you are on 2 wheels, We are much more vulnerable when connecting with other vehicles.We will end up nursing the injuries, not the car drivers.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's an immutable law of the universe that cars are faster than bikes, therefore the bike in front must be overtaken - regardless of safety or any mere man-made earthly law - if you don't want to upset the entire world order.



Believe me I was cursing them when they came past. they don't just put themselves in danger, they also do that to me, and the vehicles coming up the hill i the other direction. It's not like they were shooting past as I was near the limit anyway.


----------



## akb (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Apparently it was a youngish driver in a focus


 
  Wasn't me.


----------



## Booyaa (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?
> 
> Let me spell it out 'IF YOU RUN INTO THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR FAULT'' This is generally accepted in a court of law.
> 
> Also in the mix is that we all have a duty of care to ourselves which really is more relevant that when you are on 2 wheels, We are much more vulnerable when connecting with other vehicles.We will end up nursing the injuries, not the car drivers.


I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?.


 
I missed that first time around, sun was in my eyes m'lud, did you print it in hi-viz?


----------



## hopless500 (17 Oct 2013)

It's that time of year where it is hard to see clearly in some situations when driving due to the sun being so low - but you have to drive accordingly. There's a bit where I can normally see no problem on a junction, and can pull out - but at the moment I have to stop and get my hand up to block the sun so I can see properly and check if anything's coming. Wouldn't dream of just pulling out and hoping...
Equally, as it's that time of year, I've now got my lights on the bike constantly, and on grey days, or dawn/dusk, I have them on low strobe for visibility.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Booyaa said:


> I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH


What happened? Just out of curiosity.
Linf's statement is true in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Nobody mentioned sunglasses yet?


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Booyaa said:


> I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH



I said 'it is generally accepted', not set in stone. What were the circumstances of yours ?

I''m not blaming my colleage as in the eyes of the law, they are on his side. I do however think that when you are going to always be worse for it.....being right in the eyes of the law isn't always doing right by oneself. 
I ride in bright colours and always with lights when on motorcycle or high viz when on horseback as well FWIW












I actually also ride day and night on my cycle with lights on either strobe, or main


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Nobody mentioned sunglasses yet?



They would make things worse as the dark bits get darker when using them


----------



## Booyaa (17 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> What happened? Just out of curiosity.
> Linf's statement is true in the vast majority of cases.


In short, we were pulling out of a petrol station and he stalled and I bumped into him. There was no damage so we swapped details, couple of weeks later I got a bill through for a few grand to repair his car, which was worth about £500, at that point I got the insurance company involved and in the end all the companies and the courts agreed it was his fault for not driving properly!! I do take the point though that in most cases the one running into the back of someone else is at fault.


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> The roads around here are very narrow as you can see from that pic, and the verge on either side there isn't a verge, it is a 3ft deep drainage ditch.
> 
> As an aside, I have devised a training run for myself which involves a 800ft of climbing up a cat 4 hill, and then a descent down a cat3 one. I rode it yesterday evening in rush hour traffic and I was clocking about 45 in a 50 limit with solid double white lines on the downhill. I had about a dozen cars crossing these solid lines whilst I was doing that speed as they were desperate to overtake me to join the line of cars in front doing a similar speed to me. There are plenty of instances I can recount of cars doing stupid things, but these overtakes ont he downhill were all willful and deliberate stupidity...the rear ending guy caught my colleague this morning also displayed bad judgement...but willful stupidity like I experienced last night ???
> 
> What do you think ?



I think what you recount is familiar to most of us on a bike. I think a significant percentage of drivers don't know how to drive around cyclists, maybe don't know how to drive. I think of that percentage, a tiny fraction, wilfully and knowingly put you in danger, I think the vast majority of drivers are OK, otherwise I probably wouldn't be here.
I think that deploying lights and HiViz is not a wrong choice but making it the first part of a message on safety is wrong because it's not the primary thing that will keep you safe, that's what I think.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> They would make things worse as the dark bits get darker when using them


Was the driver in a dark bit?


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Yes crap trolling 1/10.
> For a start off, if your imaginary friend was riding into low lying sun he'd have been more viaible in dark clothing than in high viz. So the computer says NO on this occasion.


and @Leodis & @ianrauk

Given the weight of extra evidence (pictures, with the horses, power rangered up on the motorbike etc) do you still believe that I have fabricated this, am trolling for a reaction or (controversially) that I believe in what I have posted, and live by what I believe to be a sensible approach to mixing on the roads as a vulnerable user ?

Oh...here is one of me on the cycle taken at the weekend (just in case you think I made that up as well)






Trolling is IMO posting a POV which you don't really believe in, and do it purely to get a reaction.

Call me a 'Be seen' evangelist, but a troll for posting my concern about this very real danger to us at this time of year ?

Get real will you !


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Was the driver in a dark bit?



Now who is trolling ?


----------



## Leodis (17 Oct 2013)

Nice Saddle bag...


----------



## ianrauk (17 Oct 2013)

@Linford
I didn't say you fabricated it all all, so stop making things up.

You know you troll along with the best of them and looking at my reaction and the reaction of others are you really surprised at the comments ? Reap what you sow and all that. You have a history of trolling, with your current guise and that of your previous identities

Like others, I am sorry your mate got hit buy a car but some of the point's you made about hi-viz, dark clothing, lights are things that have been discussed ad-infinitum on the forum which more often then not descend into mud slinging, trolling and the cause of much friction.

If you had kept the preaching out of your initial post you would not have got the reactions you did.


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Call me a 'Be seen' evangelist, but a troll for posting my concern about this very real danger to us at this time of year ?


 
You come over as the hi-viz version of the helmet evangelists who imagine their chosen form of protection is (almost) bombproof and are unwilling to accept any information to the contrary.
Strikes me Crackle in Post 43 comes up with the best advice in the conditions existing at the time of the incident you describe in the OP.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

ianrauk said:


> @Linford
> I didn't say you fabricated it all all, so stop making things up.
> 
> You know you troll along with the best of them and looking at my reaction and the reaction of others are you really surprised at the comments ? Reap what you sow and all that. You have a history of trolling, with your current guise and that of your previous identities
> ...




I've never been afraid to play the devils advocate in either P&L or CA&D, but road safety is something I never joke about. I'd rather learn lessons in life from other peoples bad fortune than experience it myself...What happened this morning is a reminder that we will always come off worse against a car, and that they don't always see us can be due to conditions beyond their orour control...I favour the 'belt and braces' approach to it. I care little if people think less of me for that.

EDIT..that fabrication comment was directed at saraH


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> You come over as the hi-viz version of the helmet evangelists who imagine their chosen form of protection is (almost) bombproof and are unwilling to accept any information to the contrary.
> Strikes me Crackle in Post 43 comes up with the best advice in the conditions existing at the time of the incident you describe in the OP.




It isn't bombproof protection, but very few car drivers would deliberately drive into another vehicle if they have the choice. I work on that premise, and by me wearing high viz, or using lights day and night 'may' just buy them a couple of seconds more reaction time...or 60ft more stopping distance @ 30mph


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Oct 2013)

Oh, what the heck, I might as well say it: there's nothing wrong in taking reasonable steps to give yourself a better chance of being seen. I routinely ride with flashing lights in daylight for precisely this reason. But - proviso - I am under no obligation to do so, an accident caused by someone else is not my fault for not having hi-viz or lights or flags or a helmet (shame on TfL's lawyers), and drivers always have a responsibility to look (and see, which doesn't always follow) where they're taking their box.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Oh, what the heck, I might as well say it: there's nothing wrong in taking reasonable steps to give yourself a better chance of being seen. I routinely ride with flashing lights in daylight for precisely this reason. But - proviso - I am under no obligation to do so, an accident caused by someone else is not my fault for not having hi-viz or lights or flags or a helmet (shame on TfL's lawyers), and drivers always have a responsibility to look (and see, which doesn't always follow) where they're taking their box.




THIS


----------



## 4F (17 Oct 2013)

Were they wearing a helmet ?


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

4F said:


> Were they wearing a helmet ?



I believe that prevention is always betterthan cure 

(no they weren't)


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

4F said:


> Were they wearing a helmet ?


:troll:


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Linford said:


> Now who is trolling ?


 
If as you said in the OP the driver could not see due to the sun, he should have been wearing sunglasses.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

2715640 said:


> Can anyone reasonably explain why the driver couldn't see the moped rider as a silhouette, making any of the stuff about atomic custard and lights irrelevant?



Look at the pic of the road, the sun has to crest a big hill before coming into view.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

The driver did not see the other road user because he was not paying due attention to the conditions and carried on his journey without make the required adjustments.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

Old Linford does initiate a lively thread. Whether he is a troll or not, the self-appointed anti-troll brigade seem to thrive on giving him the oxygen of publicity he may crave by inflating all his threads to fiteen pages of sneering in as many minutes.

Quite a few CC types will never forgive the world for not letting them be born as J-P Sartre or Michael Foot or Hugo Chavez or Virginia Woolf and their only recourse is to drip acid comments on Internet trolls and 'like' the hell out of each others' posts until some sort of orgasm of self-congratulatory nirvana is achieved.

Like many such exercises, it may be more fun to do than to witness. Disturbingly (for me) I enjoy being the onlooker in this unusual feast of internet mutual onanism, but I may be strange like that.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

2715657 said:


> Can anyone reasonably explain why the driver couldn't see the moped rider as a silhouette, making any of the stuff about atomic custard and lights irrelevant?


Because if the Sun was in view over the horizon in front of the car driver, the pupils of his (or her) eyes would contract, which is a normal physiological reaction designed to prevent damage to the retina from too much light. Thus less light from the darker parts of the scene in front would enter the eyes, making the dark shape of the cyclist against the dark road more difficult to see.

This explanation also explains why Noodley's comment about wearing sunglasses is a complete load of cobblers. It might prevent the pupils contracting quite so much, but would also darken the already dark parts of the scene.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Old Linford does initiate a lively thread. Whether he is a troll or not, the self-appointed anti-troll brigade seem to thrive on giving him the oxygen of publicity he may crave by inflating all his threads to fiteen pages of sneering in as many minutes.
> 
> Quite a few CC types will never forgive the world for not letting them be born as J-P Sartre or Michael Foot or Hugo Chavez or Virginia Wolf and their only recourse is to drip acid comments on Internet trolls and 'like' the hell out of each others' posts until some sort of orgasm of self-congratulatory nirvana is achieved.
> 
> Like many such exercises, it may be more fun to do than to witness. Disturbingly (for me) I enjoy being the onlooker in this unusual feast of internet mutual onanism, but I may be strange like that.




Apart from enjoying being the onlooker bit. That's just annoying. I saw enough childish behaviour when I was a teacher, and at least most of that was from the brats. I mostly stay out of CA&D for that reason. But this is not CA&D...


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

2715698 said:


> Any or all of what you say may be true. Either way it is tricky to avoid the conclusion that the driver could not have failed to know that they couldn't see what was ahead of them clearly but chose to plough on regardless.


Agreed. My explanation is part of the story. Once that happened to the driver, he should then have adjusted for it.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (17 Oct 2013)

2715030 said:


> I'm not too good with the yellow face form of communication. What the next one on the sequence?









This!


----------



## Mugshot (17 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Quite a few CC types will never forgive the world for not letting them be born as J-P Sartre or Michael Foot or Hugo Chavez or Virginia Wolf and their only recourse is to drip acid comments on Internet trolls and 'like' the hell out of each others' posts until some sort of orgasm of self-congratulatory nirvana is achieved.


I agree with Boris!
If only I knew who he was talking about.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

2715721 said:


> You certainly like to portray yourself as a detached observer but, face facts here, you aren't even fooling yourself on this one.


 
In this one, I may be rather more Peeping Tom or deviant stalker than detached observer, but I'm happy with whichever mitigation will get me off with a caution.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> This explanation also explains why Noodley's comment about wearing sunglasses is a complete load of cobblers. It might prevent the pupils contracting quite so much, but would also darken the already dark parts of the scene.


 
Sunglasses are recommended for driving in winter sunlight conditions, that is in conditions where there is sunlight on the horizon.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Sunglasses are recommended for driving in winter sunlight conditions, that is in conditions where there is sunlight on the horizon.


By whom?


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> By whom?


 
The Police.


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> The Police.


Link?


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> Link?


 
To what?
The Police driving school I was at when training for my Police drivers accreditation?


----------



## Spinney (17 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> To what?
> The Police driving school I was at when training for my Police drivers accreditation?


Well, some information about who recommended the wearing of sunglasses would have been useful, rather than just expecting us to take your word for it. And the AA points out that not all sunglasses are suitable for use when driving. If the wearing of sunglasses while driving was that important, there should be a readily available link to official advice.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Oct 2013)

This isn't the police's version but it's relevant all the same: http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/driving-in-sunglasses.html


----------



## Mugshot (17 Oct 2013)

2715779 said:


> And what is the difference? They are all variations on playing the outsider. You use this technique ad nauseam. Why not just write what you think?


I thought he had.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2013)

Driver was a twunt and drove like one.
Therefore dressing like a SpaceLemon or running LaserBeamsOfDeath, would, like as not, have made no difference to the outcome. Which begs the question of what would have been the point?

The only guaranteed way the victim could have avoided this would have been to stay home. Arguing that deployment of SpaceLemonLaserBeamsOfDeath will move the needle of probability in a significant way is just opinion masquerading as expertise and knowledge.

for the record I've never been rear-ended...










...when my lights have not been on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2013)

2715916 said:


> I am criticising his posting style in general. It annoys me because I think that, if he were to drop all the hiding behind his persona bollocks, he could contribute more.


BB's posting style amuses my inner VIth former. I'd miss it if it were gone. Yet I agree that if he applied his efforts to content rather than style, like he does, say, when talking about fixed , the forum would be the better for it and its members more enlightened.

so @Boris Bajic how about you come out from behind the facade?


----------



## Hip Priest (17 Oct 2013)

My mate once crashed into another car whilst dazzled by sunlight. There's nothing the other driver could've done about it, and nothing Linford's mate could've done about it either. The only solution is for motorists to stop driving when they can't bloody see, which isn't too much to ask.


----------



## Linford (17 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Old Linford does initiate a lively thread. Whether he is a troll or not, the self-appointed anti-troll brigade seem to thrive on giving him the oxygen of publicity he may crave by inflating all his threads to fiteen pages of sneering in as many minutes.
> 
> Quite a few CC types will never forgive the world for not letting them be born as J-P Sartre or Michael Foot or Hugo Chavez or Virginia Wolf and their only recourse is to drip acid comments on Internet trolls and 'like' the hell out of each others' posts until some sort of orgasm of self-congratulatory nirvana is achieved.
> 
> Like many such exercises, it may be more fun to do than to witness. Disturbingly (for me) I enjoy being the onlooker in this unusual feast of internet mutual onanism, but I may be strange like that.




15 pages of sneering is a good description . The biggest problem with that is they don't ever stop to look at how others view them because they are too busy 'putting me to right' . I've got not problem with it CA&D, but it doesn't belong on this board. It was for my part intended as a fairly serious tale.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (17 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> Link?



*http://tinyurl.com/ny3cnkz*


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

A low sun is a terrible robber of vision. Some things can be done to improve the situation.

The windscreen should be clean and smear-free, inside and out. It is shocking how many motorists happily tootle about with grubby screens. A dirty windscreen exacerbates the problems of a low sun.

If a motorist feels unsighted by a low sun, they really need to slow right down until they are able to see. There is a fairly hollow argument that doing so would cause the driver behind them to ram them, but that brings into question the attitude of the ramming party driving at speed whilst unable to see. 

A cyclist riding into a low sun needs to be aware that anyone coming up behind them will have the same issues they are facing. There are routes I do not ride at certain times of the year when I'd be riding into a low sun. We all know hills and hillcrests where at certain times the sun just wipes out all forward vision. I avoid them when that is the case. 

The lack of lights and absence of Hi-Viz mentioned in the OP may be of no consequence in this story: Lights and bright colours on an object silhouetted against a low sun can make it 'disappear'. 

After a lengthy and thorough assessment of the issues and dangers facing road users in the light of a low sun, I have reached the conclusion that God is at fault. At first I thought it was the immigrants or the hedgehogs, but careful analysis shows that it is God.


----------



## Boris Bajic (17 Oct 2013)

2715916 said:


> I am criticising his posting style in general. It annoys me because I think that, if he were to drop all the hiding behind his persona bollocks, he could contribute more.


 
This is extraordinary and slightly potty stuff, but it drips with the nectar of gorgeousness.

When I have a point to make (_cycling with dyspraxia, choosing gears for fixed, teaching children to ride_ and so on) I make my point in the hope that it will help or add to the debate. These posts generally seem well received.

When I have an unpopular view (including my quite absurd stance that Armstrong did little that the others weren't doing, but we like them and we don't like him) then I post and stand by for flak. I usually get it. It's a lot of grown-ups pretending that pro-cycling is important and I accept the bruises.

When I find the headcam footage of a CC member execrable, provocative, self-important and/or risible, as with Magnatron (sp?), Trafficdroid, Matthew_T and others, I say so and I get flak. It is my view and I am regularly shot down for it. It could not be otherwise. 

Sometimes when I see little buddy groups _(who may not be aware that they come across to almost the entire CC membership as acid and spiteful schoolkid cabals_) ganging up with mean little faux-philosophical puke-bombs on other posters, I cannot help but mock them. It's OK to do this, because they've long-since decided that they are in charge of all political thought and they once read a book by a foreign bloke and can quote him so they must be right. Those who don't have me on ignore occasionally spit a little bile my way, but I deserve it and I am generally so far up my own arse that I cannot even see it coming. But that is how I play on the Internet.

It is bizarre that someone should tell me my posting style annoys them. I'm touched in a way, as some CC members delight in telling me how they have me on ignore (never mind it being slightly odd to keep telling someone publicly that you are ignoring them). It's nice that you don't (I'm being sincere here). But I am startled that you think a change in style from me might allow me to 'contribute more'. If I post to mock, that is the full extent of my contribution at that time. Others do it to me too. It's the Internet. Bizarrely, some people 'like' the things that others mock me for or disapprove of. 

In CA&D I see no merit in saddling my moral high horse. Most of the debate is about as erudite as marsh gas. But it is fun, kick-about and silly. I'm sorry you think it unhelpful that I hide behind a persona. It's the Internet. And I hide behind a persona.

I may not be alone.


----------



## Spinney (18 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is extraordinary and slightly potty stuff, but it drips with the nectar of gorgeousness.
> 
> When I have a point to make (_cycling with dyspraxia, choosing gears for fixed, teaching children to ride_ and so on) I make my point in the hope that it will help or add to the debate. These posts generally seem well received.
> 
> ...



I like your posts, Boris! Keep them coming!


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Oct 2013)

2716460 said:


> Suit yourself


 
I generally do. But thank you for being explicit in permitting it.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (18 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> I like your posts, Boris! Keep them coming!


Me too @Boris Bajic


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Me too @Boris Bajic


Me too, though sometimes they seem more like exercises in style than plain old English. I guess that is where the tensions build up. I suspect BB knows this very well already.


----------



## Cyclopathic (19 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> Not really sure bike lights would have helped that much either, not if the sun was directly ahead of the bike.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-illumination


"What good is a candle at noon day?"


----------

