# Idiots on bikes



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

Guy on a bike just now, all black gear, no lighting whatsoever, every other road user has lights of some discription on (as they are needed)........bellend.


----------



## vickster (3 Dec 2015)

Just now? But it's light out...


----------



## winjim (3 Dec 2015)

It's light here.

(And I'm further north than vickster )


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Dec 2015)

And here

and as counterpoint. I see just a few cyclists on my commute, today all of us (in the dark) were well lit and vizzed.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

That's not what I called the title of this thread, I named it "bell ends", because they are "bell ends".
There was another guy the other night on a horse, going out late afternoon On the road, dark clothing, diminishing light, do these people not realise how they "blend" in with their surroundings?

*Mod note*: 'Bell ends' didn't seem a suitable title for a family-friendly forum. Your description of the cyclists as such has been left within the thread.


----------



## jowwy (3 Dec 2015)

And you still managed to see him


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2015)

I was in the park the other day and I saw a tree with quite dark bark and it wasn't wearing any hi-viz or lights and definitely no reflectors, so I've written to the council to complain. I mean, how are we expected to know it's there? It's a health and safety nightmare I tell you. And a park bench.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Pretty rubbish ninja wasn't s/he. You clearly saw them.

And the horse.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> I was in the park the other day and I saw a tree with quite dark bark and it wasn't wearing any hi-viz or lights and definitely no reflectors, so I've written to the council to complain. I mean, how are we expected to know it's there? It's a health and safety nightmare I tell you. And a park bench.


You want to get that tree sorted, mate, before it jumps out in front of some poor innocent passing motorist and writes their car off.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> And here
> 
> and as counterpoint. I see just a few cyclists on my commute, today all of us (in the dark) were well lit and vizzed.


Well for whatever reason this guy wasn't lit, and like I said everybody else had lights on, what does that tell you, honestly he was almost camouflaged against the countryside.
Comments like "well it's light here" remind me of a time I spent working for a large agricultural contractor, work stopped due to rain, apon phoning the boss he said "well it's not raining here" 10 miles away sitting in the office.......


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> I was in the park the other day and I saw a tree with quite dark bark and it wasn't wearing any hi-viz or lights and definitely no reflectors, so I've written to the council to complain. I mean, how are we expected to know it's there? It's a health and safety nightmare I tell you. And a park bench.


Yeah but the tree isn't travelling along a road, yawn....


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2015)

No but you saw him. Therefore he was visible. Therefore your 'point' and this thread is imploded. Yawn.


----------



## winjim (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah but the tree isn't travelling along a road, yawn....


This one is


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2015)

That tree is a bellend.


----------



## potsy (3 Dec 2015)

Last night I saw two cars driving without lights after dark, during the morning I saw 3 cyclists doing the same.

I did also see a cyclist using red lights both front and rear.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2015)

I couldn't see all the black cars with no lights on the road this morning. I kept wondering what I was bumping into all the rime.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

Are the "I saw an invisible thing!" threads getting earlier this year?


----------



## martint235 (3 Dec 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You want to get that tree sorted, mate, before it jumps out in front of some poor innocent passing motorist and writes their car off.


Hey I remember when I was about 17, I was running down my back street and a telegraph pole jumped out on me and I ran smack into it*











I may or may have partaken of lots of very strong and unsuitable alcoholic beverages prior to this. So much so that my mum cooked me a full breakfast the following day.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Dec 2015)

I reckon there ought to be a law making cars have lights so that the driver can see the road in front of them when it's dark.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Dec 2015)

potsy said:


> Last night I saw two cars driving without lights after dark, during the morning I saw 3 cyclists doing the same.
> 
> I did also see a cyclist using red lights both front and rear.



Was he riding a PushmePullyou though?


----------



## Dirk (3 Dec 2015)

How will the powers that be explain 'accidents' when everyone is wearing hi-viz?


----------



## Subotai72 (3 Dec 2015)

I don't know why you even bothered @Justinslow there's always someone on here willing to make an argument where none exists.

I _saw_ a guy riding along the main road near work yesterday wearing dark clothing, no hi-vis and no front light. He did have a rear light. And when I say _saw, _him it was was much later than if he'd had a front light. Had I arrived to seconds earlier I might well have hit him when turning into the car park I saw him that late.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Are the "I saw an invisible thing!" threads getting earlier this year?


Or the "I was/wasn't blinded by a really bright light thread"?


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

Dirk Thrust said:


> How will the powers that be explain 'accidents' when everyone is wearing hi-viz?


But surely "common sense" and self preservation should at least prevail?


----------



## earlestownflya (3 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> I was in the park the other day and I saw a tree with quite dark bark and it wasn't wearing any hi-viz or lights and definitely no reflectors, so I've written to the council to complain. I mean, how are we expected to know it's there? It's a health and safety nightmare I tell you. And a park bench.


typical mickle bullshit


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

Drivers declare that they saw an unlit cyclist in the same manner that a toddler declares he's done a poo. Know what the hi-vis non-compliance rate is among fallen trees? SHOCKING, that's what.


----------



## martint235 (3 Dec 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I reckon there ought to be a law making cars have lights so that the driver can see the road in front of them when it's dark.


Bit radical that!!


----------



## Hip Priest (3 Dec 2015)

That's nothing. I crashed into 46 parked cars on my way to work this morning.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

Sometimes unlit cyclists go past so fast it triggers my epilepsy.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> That's nothing. I crashed into 46 parked cars on my way to work this morning.


Did you not have your lights on?


----------



## Dirk (3 Dec 2015)

Justinsoptimistt: 4037197 said:


> But surely "common sense" and self preservation should at least prevail?


We all love an optimist.


----------



## totallyfixed (3 Dec 2015)

Yep, no need for lights on bikes because as we all know vehicle drivers are attentive and fully concentrating at all times. If or when the boy racers comes out to play at night with his mates on the narrow lanes where we live would it be ok to keep our very bright lights? For years I have been labouring under the mistaken notion that they were useful when it got dark. If Cycle Chat had been around 30 years ago I could have saved a fortune.


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

in a nutshell: look out for yourself don't get het up if someone is gambling with their own safety. That is their problem.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

liambauckham said:


> in a nutshell: look out for yourself don't get het up if someone is gambling with their own safety. That is their problem.


Ok, but what do you think other road users think of that cyclist or the horse rider I mentioned? It hardly gives cyclists a good rep does it? He can't even be bothered to try and be seen from distance. Then we'll have Glen waffling on about some injustice when he appears in a "cyclist down" thread. Or a "close pass" thread where he was seen at the last minute because mum was arguing with her kids on the school run etc etc. 
Take some responsibility for yourselves.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

When did I say it was an injustice an unlit cyclist was hit?


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> When did I say it was an injustice an unlit cyclist was hit?


You may or may not have done, it was a generalisation based on your "the cyclist is the victim" type threads.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

Which thread are you thinking of?


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Dec 2015)

Well lit cyclists who also wear plenty of hi-viz and reflective kit get hit too*. The main problem is the inattentive driver, eg. the one having an argument with their kids on the school run. If they aint paying attention, they aint gonna look and they aint gonna see.

*probably statistically more than the 'ninja' cyclist.


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ok, but what do you think other road users think of that cyclist or the horse rider I mentioned? It hardly gives cyclists a good rep does it? He can't even be bothered to try and be seen from distance. Then we'll have Glen waffling on about some injustice when he appears in a "cyclist down" thread. Or a "close pass" thread where he was seen at the last minute because mum was arguing with her kids on the school run etc etc.
> Take some responsibility for yourselves.



Bad road users come in all shapes and sizes. I see a tonne of pedestrians taking their lives into their own hands. Car and lorry drivers not having a clue how to drive. Main thing is keep your eyes peeled and look out for yourself. You will only do yourself stress trying to correct the worlds ills.


----------



## vickster (3 Dec 2015)

I doubt anyone truly disagrees that riding in the dark (which it isn't at 8am) without lights isn't foolish. I also drive and would rather not have to look out for cyclists and cars without lights. Dark clothed peds darting into the road can be a hazard too

Unfortunately we live in a highly imperfect world


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Which thread are you thinking of?


None in particular, I just associate those types of threads with you, maybe you are "thread cast".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> It hardly gives cyclists a good rep does it?



Bingo!

GC


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> Well lit cyclists who also wear plenty of hi-viz and reflective kit get hit too*. The main problem is the inattentive driver, eg. the one having an argument with their kids on the school run. If they aint paying attention, they aint gonna look and they aint gonna see.
> 
> *probably statistically more than the 'ninja' cyclist.


Two cyclists riding in gloomy half light conditions (dusk or dawn) one in black with no lights, one in bright colours with lights on. Which one is "less" likely to get hit?


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

Fewer Ffs.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

liambauckham said:


> Bad road users come in all shapes and sizes. I see a tonne of pedestrians taking their lives into their own hands. Car and lorry drivers not having a clue how to drive. Main thing is keep your eyes peeled and look out for yourself. You will only do yourself stress trying to correct the worlds ills.


Is this your view in other aspects of life too, worry about no.1? What about your kids, your friends etc etc?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Two cyclists riding in gloomy half light conditions (dusk or dawn) one in black with no lights, one in bright colours with lights on. Which one is "less" likely to get hit?



The first one cos he'll be on the pavement, innit.

GC


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Two cyclists riding in gloomy half light conditions (dusk or dawn) one in black with no lights, one in bright colours with lights on. Which one is "less" likely to get hit?


loaded question... you're leading the witness!


----------



## jowwy (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Two cyclists riding in gloomy half light conditions (dusk or dawn) one in black with no lights, one in bright colours with lights on. Which one is "less" likely to get hit?


The one on the inside closest to the fence, curb, pavement, sidewalk........


----------



## Subotai72 (3 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> loaded question... you're leading the witness!


So in both instances the cyclist is blameless?


----------



## Levo-Lon (3 Dec 2015)

I remember the car driver that T boned me on a roundabout telling the cop " i didn't see him he was going to fast"
how would you know that if you didn't see him Sir?..


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Is this your view in other aspects of life too, worry about no.1? What about your kids, your friends etc etc?



Lol seeing the world we live in it probably should be. I'm a very compassionate person but I am not going to work myself into a stress because someone is doing something stupid.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Dec 2015)

Subotai72 said:


> So in both instances the cyclist is blameless?


there's is no instance... we have two pretend cyclists and nothing has happened to either of them.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

liambauckham said:


> Lol seeing the world we live in it probably should be. I'm a very compassionate person but I am not going to work myself into a stress because someone is doing something stupid.


Fair point and I see where you are coming from, but judging by some of the responses on here it doesn't matter what we wear or do as someone else will always smash into us whatever we do. 
I have to try and teach my young children the rights and wrongs of life and to behave in the correct manner, would it be right to say to them "it really doesn't matter what you wear or if you have your lights on as it will make no difference" or do I say " try and wear something bright, use your lights if it's gloomy, do your best, try your hardest"?


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Dec 2015)

I think the title of the thread should be changed to 'idiots on the internet'.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> there's is no instance... we have two pretend cyclists and nothing has happened to either of them.


What was you saying earlier @Subotai72 ?


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Fair point and I see where you are coming from, but judging by some of the responses on here it doesn't matter what we wear or do as someone else will always smash into us whatever we do.
> I have to try and teach my young children the rights and wrongs of life and to behave in the correct manner, would it be right to say to them "it really doesn't matter what you wear or if you have your lights on as it will make no difference" or do I say " try and wear something bright, use your lights if it's gloomy, do your best, try your hardest"?




go with option 1 but also tell them to get their coke from big tony as his coke is the cleanest and isnt cut with plaster of paris. No obvs your gonna teach your kids street smarts, keep your wits and keep safe


----------



## Subotai72 (3 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> there's is no instance... we have two pretend cyclists and nothing has happened to either of them.


Oh sorry pendant HYPOTHETICALLY speaking then


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> What was you saying earlier @Subotai72 ?


this...?
_"I don't know why you even bothered @Justinslow there's always someone on here willing to* make an argument where none exists*."_

I don't know why you bothered either... you saw someone this morning, decided they were a 'bell end' and shared your thoughts on here... and now you're going to spend _how long_ getting shirty with everyone who doesn't reply with "yes, you're right, they are a bell end!" ??


----------



## mjr (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ok, but what do you think other road users think of that cyclist or the horse rider I mentioned? It hardly gives cyclists a good rep does it? He can't even be bothered to try and be seen from distance. [...] Take some responsibility for yourselves.


I take responsibility for myself but I'm not buying an unproven Yellow Star jacket for anyone and I'm definitely not taking responsibility for random other cyclists - especially not @Justinslow who disobeys highway code rule 147 with this thread and I believe doesn't use bike lights that comply with the law anyway, based on past comments.

So in summary: get some legal lights yourself before complaining about others not doing so - and even then, ideally, don't get agitated enough to complain on here


----------



## Subotai72 (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> What was you saying earlier @Subotai72 ?


 Aye, pedantry is alive and well in Cyclechat


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Dec 2015)

Subotai72 said:


> Oh sorry pendant HYPOTHETICALLY speaking then


hypothetically, nothing has happened, we have two pretend cyclists and that's it. No collision, no nothing... neither can be blamed when nothing has happened. Unless you'd like to make an argument where none exists.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Comments like "well it's light here" remind me of a time I spent working for a large agricultural contractor, work stopped due to rain, apon phoning the boss he said "well it's not raining here" 10 miles away sitting in the office.......


Poor analogy, the onset of daylight generally is not as localised as a wet cloud.
Depending on which way the wind is blowing the front of my house can be dripping wet while the back is dry.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> I take responsibility for myself but I'm not buying an unproven Yellow Star jacket for anyone and I'm definitely not taking responsibility for random other cyclists - especially not @Justinslow who disobeys highway code rule 147 with this thread and I believe doesn't use bike lights that comply with the law anyway, based on past comments.
> 
> So in summary: get some legal lights yourself before complaining about others not doing so - and even then, ideally, don't get agitated enough to complain on here


Ummmm, or any lights infact, or reflectors or anything brightly coloured, as this particular guy didn't have any of the above.
I run 2 USB charge halfords specials pointed down not in people's faces, one extra flashing mini light on the front and two mini flashers on the rear, no idea what I did before but I will check your link. My 30 mile ride on Tuesday was smooth, I could see where I was going and had no issues with other road users being blinded by my lights.


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

this thread is kicking off! YEEAAAAAAAAAAAH


----------



## Phil Fouracre (3 Dec 2015)

All those bloody invisible cyclists, that nobody can ever see, makes me so angry!


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> I take responsibility for myself but I'm not buying an unproven Yellow Star jacket for anyone and I'm definitely not taking responsibility for random other cyclists - especially not @Justinslow who disobeys highway code rule 147 with this thread and I believe doesn't use bike lights that comply with the law anyway, based on past comments.
> 
> So in summary: get some legal lights yourself before complaining about others not doing so - and even then, ideally, don't get agitated enough to complain on here


Oh what have my lights got to do with what I saw this morning whilst on my way to work in my white van?


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You are OK with this as a behavior?


No of course not, but it happens. With a well lit and bright cyclist/ pedestrian whatever, at least they may be more visible further away and stand more chance of being seen earlier not just in the few seconds where the vehicle is almost on top of them?


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You managed to see this person sufficiently well to notice a complete lack of reflectors?


Yep I saw him quite well, dodery old grandad with his failing eye sight may not have done......


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Poor analogy, the onset of daylight generally is not as localised as a wet cloud.
> Depending on which way the wind is blowing the front of my house can be dripping wet while the back is dry.


Generally if it's cloudy/rainy it's darker than bright sunshine......


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> I take responsibility for myself but I'm not buying an unproven Yellow Star jacket for anyone and I'm definitely not taking responsibility for random other cyclists - especially not @Justinslow who disobeys highway code rule 147 with this thread and I believe doesn't use bike lights that comply with the law anyway, based on past comments.
> 
> So in summary: get some legal lights yourself before complaining about others not doing so - and even then, ideally, don't get agitated enough to complain on here


By the way are you some kind of weird internet stalker, digging up my old posts?


----------



## mjr (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ummmm, or any lights infact, or reflectors or anything brightly coloured, as this particular guy didn't have any of the above.


Legally, you don't have sufficient lights either, brightly-coloured isn't required and the opening post didn't mention reflectors.



Justinslow said:


> Oh what have my lights got to do with what I saw this morning whilst on my way to work in my white van?


White van? Why aren't you driving something brightly-coloured and ensuring others see you? Do you want other road users to crash into you? Bell end. 



Justinslow said:


> By the way are you some kind of weird internet stalker, digging up my old posts?


No, but most people on here don't use legal lights, so it seemed worth a quick search to see if you had admitted to being one of them and therefore being a bit hypocritical by complaining about others without sufficient lighting.

Personally, I find the legal lights on my bike and my car are plenty good enough to illuminate unlit objects in the roadway ahead of me and I ride/drive so that I can stop in what I can see to be clear, so I don't really care if they have lights on or not (but I do find reflective strips on dark-coloured objects - including Sam Browne sashes and those reflective dog leads/collars - look rather freaky and confusing).


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Dec 2015)

The more people riding like ninjas the better. It keeps motorists alert and allows me (with lights) to stand out from the crowd.

Being serious - I cannot see how people riding on public highways without lights in the dark can be defended. Unlike some of you, I live in the real world where drivers are inattentive pillocks, I will take every advantage* I can to get home safely. 

* I don't wear a helmet too often and I don't wear much high vis, but I do use lights during a lot of the day time and use reflectives.


----------



## outlash (3 Dec 2015)

Thread of the week, no question.


----------



## liambauckham (3 Dec 2015)

The Pedants Uprising!


----------



## sidevalve (3 Dec 2015)

Subotai72 said:


> So in both instances the cyclist is blameless?


Of course - they always are - just another 'it's somebody else’s fault if there's and accident' thread.


----------



## snorri (3 Dec 2015)

How does one go about finding the end of a bell anyway?


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Legally, you don't have sufficient lights either, brightly-coloured isn't required and the opening post didn't mention reflectors.
> 
> Listen, my lights are fine.
> 
> ...


Without ANY lighting.


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> How does one go about finding the end of a bell anyway?


Manually, apparently.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Aurally?



How long before that becomes ASJT?

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Has this thread not collapsed into a Black Hole under the mass of its internal contradictions yet?


----------



## winjim (3 Dec 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Has this thread not collapsed into a Black Hole under the mass of its internal contradictions yet?


If it had, would it still be visible?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No of course not, but it happens. With a well lit and bright cyclist/ pedestrian whatever, at least they may be more visible further away and stand more chance of being seen earlier not just in the few seconds where the vehicle is almost on top of them?


Nonsense.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

winjim said:


> If it had, would it still be visible?


The very Ninja of ninja threads....?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yep I saw him quite well, dodery old grandad with his failing eye sight may not have done......


Never been hit by one of those yet. A fair few young fit drivers have put my life at risk though.


----------



## Markymark (3 Dec 2015)

outlash said:


> Thread of the week, no question.


Do you mean we have an identical thread every fecking week during the winter?


----------



## Red17 (3 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> I was in the park the other day and I saw a tree with quite dark bark and it wasn't wearing any hi-viz or lights and definitely no reflectors, so I've written to the council to complain. I mean, how are we expected to know it's there? It's a health and safety nightmare I tell you. And a park bench.



Round here there are more and more trees wearing high viz, multiple lights and even some bells. Never seen it so much in the summer though - seems to be a December thing


----------



## outlash (3 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Do you mean we have an identical thread every fecking week during the winter?



I thought we usually did, but I'm open to suggestions for others


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Nonsense.


Really?


----------



## mjr (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> White being errrr White, tends to stand out against the winter vegetation and gloom, and being a panel can means there's plenty of errrrr White.


You really think that white stands out against the light grey winter sky, the white fog, white frost and (once it finally gets this far south) white snow?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Really?


Yes. Really.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Dec 2015)

White van? More like a suicide kamikaze chariot.


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> White van? More like a suicide kamikaze chariot.


Useful comments as ever.......


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> You really think that white stands out against the light grey winter sky, the white fog, white frost and (once it finally gets this far south) white snow?


Ok maybe not against snow! So now you are comparing my van which has lights which I use and reflectors which can't be taken off and number plates, with dark clothed non lit non reflective cyclists.........in the dark/gloomy conditions. 
Mate get a life.


----------



## winjim (3 Dec 2015)

The other week I saw a cyclist dressed in black. He stood out extremely well as his silhouette contrasted with the road which was lit by street lights. His dark clothing was literally the thing which alerted me to his presence in my mirror as I prepared to pull away.


----------



## Dirk (3 Dec 2015)

Every summer we are blessed with an influx of holiday makers, drawn in part by the attractions of
riding the Tarka Trail. I've lost count of the number of them who ride at 5 - 10 mph on this off road trail, wearing full hi-viz and with lights on in broad daylight. Why?!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Dec 2015)

Just popped in to check on how our two hypothetical cyclists are getting on today. I'd hate to think that something had happened to them without me knowing.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Dec 2015)

User said:


> I believe they are safely at home, watching a bit of telly.


That's a relief. I hope they don't go out riding over the weekend - I'd like a worry-free weekend for a change.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Dec 2015)

I saw a man dressed in dark clothes, no lights, no hi viz, no helmet, just before nightfall yesterday - _the suicidal maniac was trying to cross the road!!! 
_


----------



## arch684 (3 Dec 2015)

User said:


> I believe they are safely at home, watching a bit of telly.


Or reading this thread it's better than the telly


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I saw a man dressed in dark clothes, no lights, no hi viz, no helmet, just before nightfall yesterday - _the suicidal maniac was trying to cross the road!!! _


Just begging for it.


----------



## pplpilot (3 Dec 2015)

I saw a dark thing dressed in some dark stuff it was darker than a really dark thing on a really dark night. A blind man with a bag on his head nearly ran into him on his galloping horse.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Dec 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Just begging for it.



Well, yes: he made it across the road without causing a multi car pile up - amazingly, given so many Porsches on the road it was practically shark-infested waters.

So I went over and shot him in the face.

I could be wrong but I thought I saw a look of relief, albeit briefly.


----------



## Bollo (3 Dec 2015)

A solution of the Einstein field equations (100 years old this year) predicts the existence of black holes, entities so massive that not even light can escape their gravitational pull. Hey, Einstein! How about adding some hi-viz and lights to those equations, you _idiot_!


----------



## Justinslow (3 Dec 2015)

Some of you guys....... You crack me up.........
And we wonder why cyclists are dispised by many motorists......


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Some of you guys....... You crack me up.........
> And we wonder why cyclists are dispised by many motorists......



Ha! That answers the question of why that nobber slammed me to the kerb wirh his Landrover tonight. He's been reading this thread!


----------



## earlestownflya (3 Dec 2015)

good old landrover man


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Ha! That answers the question of why that nobber slammed me to the kerb wirh his Landrover tonight. He's been reading this thread!


Did you have lights on?

If so you clearly provoked him by letting him see you.


----------



## mickle (3 Dec 2015)

To be fair I was riding a midnight blue bike, wearing a black coat and a camo hat. I'm such a nobber.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Generally if it's cloudy/rainy it's darker than bright sunshine......


Who mentioned bright sunshine?


----------



## Bollo (3 Dec 2015)

I wear black on the outside, because black is how I feel on the inside.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Some of you guys....... You crack me up.........
> And we wonder why cyclists are dispised by many motorists......


The last lobotomised shitlark to run me off the road did it in broad daylight whilst I had my lights on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Well, yes: he made it across the road without causing a multi car pile up - amazingly, given so many Porsches on the road it was practically shark-infested waters.
> 
> So I went over and shot him in the face.
> 
> I could be wrong but I thought I saw a look of relief, albeit briefly.


It was a kindness. A mercy killing. Quicker and cleaner than the otherwise inevitable outcome.


----------



## mick1836 (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Guy on a bike just now, all black gear, no lighting whatsoever, every other road user has lights of some discription on (as they are needed)........bellend.



Bet he's one of these?




But hey, if you are a car driver and hit one it's YOUR fault because despite you cannot see them you SHOULD have seen them.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Who mentioned bright sunshine?


Certainly not me mate, as it was cloudy/dull and definitely not bright.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between different tones of daytime "brightness" and when it is necessary to use illumination, you should be considering your position as a road user.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Certainly not me mate


Wrong.

Have a read of what you've written previously.

You're trying to muddy the waters with hypothetical and false equivalencies.


----------



## Bollo (4 Dec 2015)

Hay, it's 8:00am so there's a good chance I'm sober. @Justinslow, you may have noticed that your OP has taken a little incoming. Here's why.

Today I'll drive to work; a 16 mile journey along the A34 and A303. During that journey I'll see at around 10 drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least 15mph. I'll more than likely be dangerously tailgated at least once. I'll see, on average, two people on their mobiles. I could come home and start a post with the title "I saw an idiot in a vehicle", but I'd be starting a new thread on the same topic every single day. And that would get boring.

Threads like these usually have the assumption, sometimes explicitly stated, that the offending cyclist somehow shames the great tribe of all cyclists. This is textbook out-group thinking. This TRL report has done the rounds on CC a few times over the years, but it's still worth a read. Summarising, an in-group will always regard any negative behaviour, however uncommon, by a member of an out-group as typical of that group, while excusing common negative behaviours within the in-group as exceptional or atypical. I give you 'the otherwise law-abiding motorist' coming to a magistrates near you today. In the end, "what people think" says more about them than it does the target of their thinking.

As Cain said in that great slasher potboiler The Old Testament, "Am I my brother's keeper?". Just because someone rides a bike, it doesn't mean we're BFFs. If they choose to put themselves in harms way by riding carelessly, RLJing or going into stealth mode, there's feck all I can do. Unlike driving, at least cycling is usually democratic enough that idiot behaviour only rewards it's perpetrator.

So I'm not going to flagellate myself because you've seen a Ninja.


----------



## oldstrath (4 Dec 2015)

Bollo said:


> Hay, it's 8:00am so there's a good chance I'm sober. @Justinslow, you may have noticed that your OP has taken a little incoming. Here's why.
> 
> Today I'll drive to work; a 16 mile journey along the A34 and A303. During that journey I'll see at around 10 drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least 15mph. I'll more than likely be dangerously tailgated at least once. I'll see, on average, two people on their mobiles. I could come home and start a post with the title "I saw an idiot in a vehicle", but I'd be starting a new thread on the same topic every single day. And that would get boring.
> 
> ...


Shame there's not a 'many likes' button. Thank you for having the patience to articulate this, when most of us would rather just point and laugh.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Dec 2015)

mick1836 said:


> Bet he's one of these?
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, if you are a car driver and hit one it's YOUR fault because despite you cannot see them you SHOULD have seen them.



One of the seven cyclists I can count, but you can't see?

There's this new thing called Specsaver.

Give it a shot...


----------



## Subotai72 (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Some of you guys....... You crack me up.........
> And we wonder why cyclists are dispised by many motorists......


@Justinslow I think a list of suitable Topics for the resident d*cks posted as a Sticky might be a good idea....but then they'd probably not have anything/anyone to jump all over or talk about


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

Bollo said:


> Hay, it's 8:00am so there's a good chance I'm sober. @Justinslow, you may have noticed that your OP has taken a little incoming. Here's why.
> 
> Today I'll drive to work; a 16 mile journey along the A34 and A303. During that journey I'll see at around 10 drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least 15mph. I'll more than likely be dangerously tailgated at least once. I'll see, on average, two people on their mobiles. I could come home and start a post with the title "I saw an idiot in a vehicle", but I'd be starting a new thread on the same topic every single day. And that would get boring.
> 
> ...


That's a good post, I like it and take it on board.
I think what struck me was the guys overal "look" - pro looking dude, nice (black) drop bar bike, nice looking dark kit, expensive looking dark helmet, dark panniers and not a (cheap) light in sight, in gloomy conditions on a national speed limit country road. That is all.
I take your point about cretinous drivers, but given this forum is directed towards cyclists thought it was worthy of mention.
I wouldn't ordinarily mention cretinous driving on this forum, like you I see it all the time. However apart from kids in towns riding in stealth I rarely see stealth cyclists on the open road and find it foolish in the extreme particularly from someone who "looked" like he should have known better. Just my opinion.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Poor analogy, the onset of daylight generally is not as localised as a wet cloud.
> Depending on which way the wind is blowing the front of my house can be dripping wet while the back is dry.


This is what you said and you are questioning whether the rider needed lights in the first place. What I am saying is how do you know what the light conditions were like in this part of Suffolk at that time? How far had the guy ridden in even darker conditions before I passed him? 
This morning was a lot brighter at the same time.


----------



## earlestownflya (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Certainly not me mate, as it was cloudy/dull and definitely not bright.
> Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between different tones of daytime "brightness" and when it is necessary to use illumination, you should be considering your position as a road user.


you're on the money,justin..these planks shouldn't be on the road.The reason they have these near misses with vehicles is because they can't ride,piss weak little boys who can't hold a straight line on a bike.


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I saw a man dressed in dark clothes, no lights, no hi viz, no helmet, just before nightfall yesterday - _the suicidal maniac was trying to cross the road!!! _


What a bell end!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Dec 2015)

Bollo said:


> Hay, it's 8:00am so there's a good chance I'm sober. @Justinslow, you may have noticed that your OP has taken a little incoming. Here's why.
> 
> Today I'll drive to work; a 16 mile journey along the A34 and A303. During that journey I'll see at around 10 drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least 15mph. I'll more than likely be dangerously tailgated at least once. I'll see, on average, two people on their mobiles. I could come home and start a post with the title "I saw an idiot in a vehicle", but I'd be starting a new thread on the same topic every single day. And that would get boring.
> 
> ...



Is there some way of automating this post to be the reply to all future threads about ninjas, RLJ or similar collective responsibility bollocks?

GC


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is there some way of automating this post to be the reply to all future threads about ninjas, RLJ or similar collective responsibility bollocks?
> 
> GC


No, idiots need highlighting whether they are drivers or cyclists.


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No, idiots need highlighting whether they are drivers or cyclists.


But, assuming they are idiots (and that assumption is another issue), it's the idiots that need talking to, not other people who happen to use the same form of transport.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

Tim Hall said:


> But, assuming they are idiots (and that assumption is another issue), it's the idiots that need talking to, not other people who happen to use the same form of transport.


One would hope that they may read forums such as this, and change their ways?


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

They were just standing around with blank eyes waiting for some concerned citizen to step up to the mark and draw the line and lay down the law, and here you are Justin, God bless you. Middle East next?


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> They were just standing around with blank eyes waiting for some concerned citizen to step up to the mark and draw the line and lay down the law, and here you are Justin, God bless you. Middle East next?


Probably could do a better job than some of those in power over last 20 years........


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> This is what you said and you are questioning whether the rider needed lights in the first place. What I am saying is how do you know what the light conditions were like in this part of Suffolk at that time? How far had the guy ridden in even darker conditions before I passed him?
> This morning was a lot brighter at the same time.


You then introduced bright sunlight as a red herring and if you can quote where I question the need for lights, crack on. I even state that Mr and all my felow cyclists were lit and vizzed. I often post into what light threads. You seem to be wrongly extrapolating my wondering on your attitude as some sort of anti light opinion.

At the time you posted, 150 odd miles north also on a wet morning I wouldn't have particularly batted an eyelid at a ninja "idiot" let alone come rushing to tell people about it.

Each to their own tho.


----------



## theclaud (4 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> That tree is a bellend.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> You then introduced bright sunlight as a red herring and if you can quote where I question the need for lights, crack on. I even state that Mr and all my felow cyclists were lit and vizzed. I often post into what light threads. You seem to be wrongly extrapolating my wondering on your attitude as some sort of anti light opinion.
> 
> At the time you posted, 150 odd miles north also on a wet morning I wouldn't have particularly batted an eyelid at a ninja "idiot" let alone come rushing to tell people about it.
> 
> Each to their own tho.


Yep each to their own, if you feel it's a waste of space thread- walk/ride on by..........


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> They were just standing around with blank eyes waiting for some concerned citizen to step up to the mark and draw the line and lay down the law, and here you are Justin, God bless you. Middle East next?


I also think you need to look at some of your own threads, rearrange these words- kettle, pot, black, the, calling.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

You said that before. I asked you which threads and you couldn't answer. If you take issue with my posts then cite the post, stop making stuff up.


----------



## Shed_head (4 Dec 2015)

I wouldn't wear high viz unless I am commuting, I always run lights though as my bike is Black as is a lot of my gear. Better to be seen then dead! 
Some seriously funny replies on this thread though


----------



## oldstrath (4 Dec 2015)

So if I have no lights I'm a bellend , if my lights are 'too bright' I'm a bellend, if i have the wrong sort of lights, or hivis, or not hivis .... Maybe everyone who believes in collective responsibility for cyclists could get together and agree a definitive list of what we must, and must not, wear, carry or otherwise display?


----------



## Shed_head (4 Dec 2015)

I think its a matter of choice, personally I would rather be seen then not, but you do wonder what some people are doing riding with no lights in the dark... Death wish??..


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Dec 2015)

Well technically it is a matter of choice, however it is also the matter of the law.


----------



## oldstrath (4 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Well technically it is a matter of choice, however it is also the matter of the law.



I'm aware of that, but I'm really not sure why anyone worries about the behaviour of some cyclists they'll probably never see again. Drivers behaving stupidly are a damn sight more dangerous, but as pointed out earlier, complaints about every one of those we see could crash the internet.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> So if I have no lights I'm a bellend , if my lights are 'too bright' I'm a bellend, if i have the wrong sort of lights, or hivis, or not hivis .... Maybe everyone who believes in collective responsibility for cyclists could get together and agree a definitive list of what we must, and must not, wear, carry or otherwise display?


That's a good point, according to @mjray my lights are illegal (on my bike) and my van is too white (?).
Surely most of us use common sense and fit/switch on lights this time of year or in the dark and wear reasonably colourful clothes? It's not rocket science is it?


----------



## mjr (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> That's a good point, according to @mjray my lights are illegal (on my bike) and my van is too white (?).
> Surely most of us use common sense and fit/switch on lights this time of year or in the dark and wear reasonably colourful clothes? It's not rocket science is it?


No no no, according to THE LAW, your bike lights aren't sufficient (which is subtly different from being illegal). I didn't write the law, else I would probably have come up with something less contrived 

I wish most of us used common sense and were lit after dark or when visibility was seriously reduced and realised that dressing like a space lemon isn't necessary and pushed for motorists to be held accountable when they fail to drive so they can stop within what they can see to be clear.



glenn forger said:


> You said that before. I asked you which threads and you couldn't answer. If you take issue with my posts then cite the post, stop making stuff up.



No no no, according to @Justinslow, he'd be a "weird internet stalker, digging up [your] old posts". Much better not to check the truth before defaming another person.



Milkfloat said:


> Well technically it is a matter of choice, however it is also the matter of the law.


Not "just now" at 8am yesterday in Suffolk, requiring lights wasn't a matter of the law. Sunrise was before ten to 8.

Now can you all stop posting incorrect things and get back to the funny comments, please?


----------



## Shed_head (4 Dec 2015)

How do you know if your bike lights are sufficient?.. Also reading the highway code you must have a red rear reflector and Amber pedal reflectors! Neither of which I run or would choose to run on my road bikes.


----------



## mjr (4 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> How do you know if your bike lights are sufficient?


They will be stamped BS6102/3 on the body, or an equivalent marking from another EU country (most often K~ for Germany). If you bought them from any UK shop except Clas Ohlson in the last few years, they're almost certainly not sufficient to meet the law.

And yes, you should have reflectors too. I have pedal and rear reflectors on all my bikes, including the vintage road bike which I think isn't legally required to do so. You can get reflectors for SPDs for sure and probably others, and small white/red reflectors which clip above the brakes.

There's almost no chance of being caught for bad lighting/reflectors these days as long as you have some lights, but if you're not legally lit - especially if you've admitted it on a website - then I think it's wrong to criticise the bad/no lights of others.


----------



## Shed_head (4 Dec 2015)

Errr OK, I always run lights even during the day in summer I run a rear light, I haven't criticised anyone for bad lights just said it was a matter of choice but I prefer to be seen. I am a believer in not trusting motorist or any other road user and would rather do whatever I can to be seen and not squashed. I don't know anyone in my cycling groups that run reflectors, its good to know though.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> Errr OK, I always run lights even during the day in summer I run a rear light, I haven't criticised anyone for bad lights just said it was a matter of choice but I prefer to be seen. I am a believer in not trusting motorist or any other road user and would rather do whatever I can to be seen and not squashed. I don't know anyone in my cycling groups that run reflectors, its good to know though.


It's ok, @mjray is criticising me for running "insufficient" lights even though I have two USB bright lights pointed not too high so I can see where I'm going and a strobing LED to make me more visible and two strobing LEDs on the rear! 
Apparently I'm not allowed to comment on other cyclists for dumb attire and lighting (lack of) because I have these "insufficient" lights, go figure.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> I wouldn't wear high viz unless I am commuting, I always run lights though as my bike is Black as is a lot of my gear. Better to be seen then dead!
> Some seriously funny replies on this thread though


Better to be seen than dead indeed. If only lights and hi-viz, or the absence thereof, could be demonstrated to make a difference one way or the other. 

I've never yet been in unwanted contact with a car or other motor vehicle whilst wearing black and riding a black bike with no lights.
I have been in unwanted contact with a car or other motor vehicle whilst wearing space-lemon and riding a green/white/purple bike with very VERY bright lights.

What conclusions can be drawn from the collected anecdata of CC versus, say, the conclusions published in books like The Invisible Gorilla?


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

You're the victim here justin, people should remember that I reckon.


----------



## mjr (4 Dec 2015)

Strobe lights 

Isn't it reasonable to expect people to get themselves up to the legal minimum before criticising others?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You sir clearly have a death wish.


Begging for it. Stuff the two huge mahoosively powerful headlights on the average car, just drive on through the cyclist playing the "came out of nowhere dressed in black, no lights" card.

It is a wonder car drivers manage to stay on the black unlit carriageways hereabouts rather than hooning into and across the fields....


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Strobe lights
> 
> Isn't it reasonable to expect people to get themselves up to the legal minimum before criticising others?


Well they flash? A couple of quid from Halfords I don't know what the correct terminology is.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You're the victim here justin, people should remember that I reckon.


Righto.........lets hope that cyclist I saw doesn't become one too.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

He's likely to suffer a fatality after he covers 30m miles, statistically, so I think your concern is less with safety and more to do with calling cyclists names who haven't done anything wrong.


----------



## DaveReading (4 Dec 2015)

"Idiots on bikes" - how so ?

When I last bought a bike my LBS made me sign an "I am not an idiot" declaration before they let me take it out of the shop.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> He's likely to suffer a fatality after he covers 30m miles, statistically, so I think your concern is less with safety and more to do with calling cyclists names who haven't done anything wrong.


Yes you are correct, he was riding impeccably, just not very cleverly.


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> So if I have no lights I'm a bellend , if my lights are 'too bright' I'm a bellend, if i have the wrong sort of lights, or hivis, or not hivis ....* Maybe everyone who believes in collective responsibility for cyclists could get together *and agree a definitive list of what we must, and must not, wear, carry or otherwise display?



...i think that's what we're doing... only, we can't agree on anything


----------



## mjr (4 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> ...i think that's what we're doing... only, we can't agree on anything


Or rather, we agree on nothing!

Just read this over there, which also seems appropriate here:


shouldbeinbed said:


> It gets me that people have to tell you about every indiscretion perceived or real that any cyclist they've seen recently has committed as if we all live together and I can have a word on their behalf.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Strobe lights
> 
> Isn't it reasonable to expect people to get themselves up to the legal minimum before criticising others?


Here they are
http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bik...vc:m|adp:1o5&gclid=CKeF1-TfwskCFRUTGwodyd8GJg

And
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...goryId=312030&productId=1143731&storeId=10001

Not bs approved, I hang my head in shame.......


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Dec 2015)

so in an attempt to take this daft thread off topic and into an area worth discussing... why is a set of bike lights that do not carry the BS kite mark 'insufficient' ?

Back in the days if D batteries and bulbs i had various sets of bike lights which all had a pretty little kite mark stamped on them... but gawd the lights were sh!te, especially after about 20 minutes when a rich tea biscuit would have been brighter.

I've never noticed a single kite mark on any of my LED bike lights, but they certainly seem to work a lot better than the old (pre-LED) ones. They may not have a kite mark but i can see in front of me and can be seen, for hours and hours rather than a mere 20-30 minutes... so what's so insufficient about them??? @mjray


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Or rather, we agree on nothing!
> 
> Just read this over there, which also seems appropriate here:


For once I kind of agree with you, this thread has snowballed several pages because of some pointless arguing.
Some if you blather on about various topics such as "if we wear helmets it shows cycling as dangerous" but we can't even agree that if we behave better with good road sense (cycling proficiency) whilst actually out riding it could, wait for it, actually improve our image and maybe safety, and maybe other road users might actually hate us less?
Instead posters on here say things like " well I don't have to, so I won't, it's up to the driver to be able to see me" - bloody mindedness springs to mind.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> so in an attempt to take this daft thread off topic and into an area worth discussing... why is a set of bike lights that do not carry the BS kite mark 'insufficient' ?
> 
> Back in the days if D batteries and bulbs i had various sets of bike lights which all had a pretty little kite mark stamped on them... but gawd the lights were sh!te, especially after about 20 minutes when a rich tea biscuit would have brighter.
> 
> I've never noticed a single kite mark on any of my LED bike lights, but they certainly seem to work a lot better than the old (pre-LED) ones. They may not have a kite mark but i can see in front of me and can be seen, for hours and hours rather than a mere 20-30 minutes... so what's so insufficient about them??? @mjray


Elf and safety innit, rules and regs. There's nothing wrong with them.


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Elf and safety innit, rules and regs. There's nothing wrong with them.


presactly... calling them insufficient suggests they're dim and might even melt in the rain.

maybe it's a case of, the kite mark costs money so the manufacturers just don't bother with the extra expense??? but that's a pure guess.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> presactly... calling them insufficient suggests they're dim and might even melt in the rain.
> 
> maybe it's a case of, the kite mark costs money so the manufacturers just don't bother with the extra expense??? but that's a pure guess.


At £3 for a pair of flashers from halfords I'd say you were on the money.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> so in an attempt to take this daft thread off topic and into an area worth discussing... why is a set of bike lights that do not carry the BS kite mark 'insufficient' ?



Old bill are pragmatists, they would never charge a cyclist with non-standard lights so long as they had lights and I've never heard of pedal reflectors' absence causing a fine.


----------



## Justinslow (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Old bill are pragmatists, they would never charge a cyclist with non-standard lights so long as they had lights and I've never heard of pedal reflectors' absence causing a fine.


Which is why we all use them (or don't )


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Old bill are pragmatists, they would never charge a cyclist with non-standard lights so long as they had lights and I've never heard of pedal reflectors' absence causing a fine.


I'm sure they wouldn't... although i do recall an old acquaintance being pulled for having a dim rear light (batteries on their last legs)... but he was a bit a of a scroat so it might have been a_ potential stolen bike check_ and the dim light was the excuse for having a quick word.

Does anyone know the costs involved in getting products tested to British Standards??? I can't see it being a free service.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

What is?


----------



## pauldavid (4 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You said that before. I asked you which threads and you couldn't answer. If you take issue with my posts then cite the post, stop making stuff up.



Any one of your many naughty motorist threads would do, pick one yourself they all tend to be much the same anyway


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

You are taking issue with a post of mine you can't cite on a thread you can't name? What upset you so much?


----------



## Crandoggler (4 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> Errr OK, I always run lights even during the day in summer I run a rear light


So now you're an avid energy waster and a colossal black target for motorists. 

You lunatic. Buy some proper lights!


----------



## glenn forger (4 Dec 2015)

Years ago I had blue wheel lights and a copper complimented me on their visibilitiness.


----------



## pauldavid (5 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You are taking issue with a post of mine you can't cite on a thread you can't name? What upset you so much?



Your general attitude toward anyone with a view other than your own over a prolonged period of time


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Dec 2015)

With apologies if this has already been posted - put it down to my laziness ........... and frustration at a very old myth.

IF drivers very definitely see cyclists dressed in black, riding black bikes, without lights - and give them a wide berth, how come do they decide to come so close to me, lit up like a ****ing Xmas tree, high-vis waistcoat/arm bands/ankle bands, and wheel lights?

Simples - I have lit myself up so that they can improve their aim! Sure, it's a tiny minority, but I do get pissed off when unlit ninja is given space, and I get the punishment pass.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> It's not rocket science is it?



No, but it is yet another situation where your intuition is faulty, and leads you to focus on the wrong things entirely.

Your "but it's common sense" position is plain wrong - maybe you should open your mind as to why so many people on this thread are telling you so.

It could be that they have a better understanding of the problem that you could learn from...I know I did.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Actual idiots on bikes. 

Idiots for thinking hi viz makes them safer.


----------



## flake99please (5 Dec 2015)

I believe that its 'due diligence' on my part by wearing hi-viz clothing and having my bike lit up like a Christmas tree, (and to a lesser extent wearing a helmet) as it leaves less opportunity for another road user (or pedestrian for that matter) to say they didnt see me in the event of an accident. At the end of October this year I was involved in a collision with a car where the driver performed a move without checking his mirror before executing his manoeuvre. Im not saying that I consider myself safer because I choose to wear what I wear or have the lights fitted as I do, nor am I saying that anyone who chooses otherwise is less safer on the roads. If I choose to wear hi-viz and have my bike well lit up then what other excuses can a driver use for not seeing me properly other than that they were not paying attention to their surroundings (assuming I am riding in an appropriate and lawful manner).


----------



## Ian193 (5 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Old bill are pragmatists, they would never charge a cyclist with non-standard lights so long as they had lights and I've never heard of pedal reflectors' absence causing a fine.



Once my feet are on the pedals you wouldn't be able to see the reflectors anyway whether they're fitted or not


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> No, but it is yet another situation where your intuition is faulty, and leads you to focus on the wrong things entirely.
> 
> Your "but it's common sense" position is plain wrong - maybe you should open your mind as to why so many people on this thread are telling you so.
> 
> It could be that they have a better understanding of the problem that you could learn from...I know I did.


Why don't you try to en "lighten" me then..........

The problem is some people are just plain ignorant, if you think that applies to me - fine.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Why don't you try to en "lighten" me then..........
> 
> The problem is some people are just plain ignorant, if you think that applies to me - fine.



I don't believe ignorance is insulting. How can we learn, without being ignorant or wrong about the subject?

The points have been made in the thread. What I'm challenging you to do is consider that these people are not wrong; that they have learned something you haven't yet.

To form a reliable opinion on any given subject, we must first dismiss all our assumptions and prejudices. Then form some potential ideas. Then consider supporting evidence.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Actual idiots on bikes.
> 
> Idiots for thinking hi viz makes them safer.




And you wonder why cyclists get a hard time with attitudes like that? 
So to take it back to my children - should I tell them when out riding in dark conditions don't bother with lights and wear dark clothing?


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I don't believe ignorance is insulting. How can we learn, without being ignorant or wrong about the subject?
> 
> The points have been made in the thread. What I'm challenging you to do is consider that these people are not wrong; that they have learned something you haven't yet.
> 
> To form a reliable opinion on any given subject, we must first dismiss all our assumptions and prejudices. Then form some potential ideas. Then consider supporting evidence.


Or just use common sense and bypass all the bull##it......


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

flake99please said:


> I believe that its 'due diligence' on my part by wearing hi-viz clothing and having my bike lit up like a Christmas tree, (and to a lesser extent wearing a helmet) as it leaves less opportunity for another road user (or pedestrian for that matter) to say they didnt see me in the event of an accident. At the end of October this year I was involved in a collision with a car where the driver performed a move without checking his mirror before executing his manoeuvre. Im not saying that I consider myself safer because I choose to wear what I wear or have the lights fitted as I do, nor am I saying that anyone who chooses otherwise is less safer on the roads. If I choose to wear hi-viz and have my bike well lit up then what other excuses can a driver use for not seeing me properly other than that they were not paying attention to their surroundings (assuming I am riding in an appropriate and lawful manner).



Understandable, but wouldn't it be great if you carried out due diligence on _controls that actually reduced your chances of being hurt?
_
...And wouldn't it be great if your recovery controls didn't undermine the effective preventative controls?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Or just use common sense and bypass all the bull##it......



_Namely, to be a good reasoner, one must have both the capacity to do whatever computation is necessary (i.e., cognitive ability, intelligence) and the willingness to engage deliberative reasoning processes _


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> _Namely, to be a good reasoner, one must have both the capacity to do whatever computation is necessary (i.e., cognitive ability, intelligence) and the willingness to engage deliberative reasoning processes _


So what should I tell my kids?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> So what should I tell my kids?



Tell them to ask someone who is willing to think and understand the problem before giving them advice.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> No one is saying that cyclists shouldn't use lights.


And I never said anything about "hi vis". 



Tin Pot said:


> No, but it is yet another situation where your intuition is faulty, and leads you to focus on the wrong things entirely.
> 
> Your "but it's common sense" position is plain wrong - maybe you should open your mind as to why so many people on this thread are telling you so.
> 
> It could be that they have a better understanding of the problem that you could learn from...I know I did.


It seems pretty simple to me, if it's dodgy out there do something to make it less dodgy, whether it be turning a light on or putting on a pair of gloves or switching to winter tyres........common sense.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Tell them to ask someone who is willing to think and understand the problem before giving them advice.


Ok so the guys and gals in the pic you posted then.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2015)

To be seen or not to be seen. That is the question.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Tell them to ask someone who is willing to think and understand the problem before giving them advice.


Nice swerve by the way.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> To be seen or not to be seen. That is the question.
> 
> View attachment 111861


?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ok so the guys and gals in the pic you posted then.



As I've said, you can't learn if you're not willing to set aside your assumptions and prejudices. Consider many alternative answers and look for evidence for each of them.

Common sense and intuition are for people who have neither the capacity nor desire to understand how things really are.


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2015)

flake99please said:


> I believe that its 'due diligence' on my part by wearing hi-viz clothing and having my bike lit up like a Christmas tree, (and to a lesser extent wearing a helmet) as it leaves less opportunity for another road user (or pedestrian for that matter) to say they didnt see me in the event of an accident. At the end of October this year I was involved in a collision with a car where the driver performed a move without checking his mirror before executing his manoeuvre. Im not saying that I consider myself safer because I choose to wear what I wear or have the lights fitted as I do, nor am I saying that anyone who chooses otherwise is less safer on the roads. If I choose to wear hi-viz and have my bike well lit up then what other excuses can a driver use for not seeing me properly other than that they were not paying attention to their surroundings (assuming I am riding in an appropriate and lawful manner).



Slippery slope though.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Or perhaps, and much much much more importantly, addressing the issue of people not really looking properly when driving.


Good luck with that........


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Ironic juxtapose of two sorts of clothing designed with polar opposite intentions?


Obviously, and at that moment in time probably entirely acceptable.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

What amuses e is that places like Aldershot, Portsmouth, and other areas with high numbers of service personnel riding in camouflage do not have higher accident rates


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Or perhaps, and much much much more importantly, addressing the issue of people not really looking properly when driving.


And I was getting told off by Glenn for trying to solve the worlds ills........


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> If that is your answer to an issue of danger on our roads, please don't tell your kids anything.


No it isn't my answer.
It's my response to you to try to influence millions of drivers!


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> If it was obvious, why the "?" ?


Its relevance.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4040553, member: 9609"]but what about the drivers who don't see to well? yes it would be nice to get them off the road, but in the mean time...[/QUOTE]

...Sabotage their cars?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> What amuses e is that places like Aldershot, Portsmouth, and other areas with high numbers of service personnel riding in camouflage do not have higher accident rates



Well, I'd shoot them too, as a mercy and quickly!

If they weren't armed.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> What amuses e is that places like Aldershot, Portsmouth, and other areas with high numbers of service personnel riding in camouflage do not have higher accident rates


Having learned so much from the helmet debates and knowing from the evidence that we are so unlikely to have a road accident, why worry about the drivers anyway?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> *Having learned* so much from the helmet debates and knowing from the evidence that we are so unlikely to have a road accident, why worry about the drivers anyway?



Now you're just teasing...


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> If you think that poor diving is inevitable or unalterable, then I would rather you left talking to your kids to someone else.


No that's not what I think, as is pretty clear from this thread, every other driver that morning had lights on, they all did their bit.
What are you going to do about all these "poor drivers"?


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Now you're just teasing...


No I'm not, @User wants to focus on all the bad drivers out there that errrr actually according to many on here don't actually cause us accidents, remember the evidence.......


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> And I never said anything about "hi vis".
> 
> 
> It seems pretty simple to me, if it's dodgy out there do something to make it less dodgy, whether it be turning a light on or putting on a pair of gloves or switching to winter tyres........common sense.


*not being provocative here just an alternative view* The number of random , unpredictable public mass shootings and gun sprees in the USA and the daily minor gun incidents that nobody knows about outside of the participants.

NRA common sense is more guns. In cycling terms that is like saying protect yourself from idiots in cars when on a bike by getting into a car as well.

The due diligence/common sense approach advocated for us cyclists of lighting and vizzing up is basically making ourselves the apologists, the blamed victims and seeking to solve the problem of poor or ignorant driving by mitigation, without attending to the root cause.

In gun terms that is like walking around San Bernardino today or strolling into Sandy Hook or Columbine or wherever and haranguing the victims for not going about their daily lives and to school in a bulletproof vest and ballistic helmet.

The parallels are there on control too - gun control in America is as popular amongst many & seemingly as likely as in driving terms introducing regular (5 yearly?? Less???) compulsory competency testing to retain a licence to propel 2 tons of lethal machinery in public or far more realistic and appropriate judicial sentencing for the consequences, intended or not, of failures to adequately control said killing machine.

Nobody is blaming victims of misused guns in the hands of dangerous idiots for being normal people doing normal things in a normal manner, so why are some so hot and bothered that cyclists should have to go that extra mile in self preservation?

For the sake of clarity: I do go that mile and more myself out of sheer pragmatism of living in an imperfect system that from the law makers in Westminster down through judiciary and enforcement to the bottom half of the Daily Mail and a popular media which subjugates my right to safety however I choose to present myself on a bike under the no more significant or necessary needs of driving and drivers not to be impeded or adequately penalised for poor practice or worse. Also in a system where even many of those that share my passion for and practice of cycling will so readily castigate me if I didn't conform to this enhanced level of protectionism and passive victimhood, while shrugging their shoulders and saying 'what more can we do' when (ykwim) better vehicle control is brought up as the answer.

Better standards of driving will save more lives than all the PPE we can get.

*edit, typos fixed now*


----------



## outlash (5 Dec 2015)




----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Having learned so much from the helmet debates and knowing from the evidence that we are so unlikely to have a road accident, why worry about the drivers anyway?




Correct

Anyone who is an experienced cyclist will know that you do exactly this

You are aware of the vehicles around you and that is it......... I certainly am not worried about other vehicles, and trust them to react appropriately and correctly

That is the way the roads work.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Correct
> 
> Anyone who is an experienced cyclist will know that you do exactly this
> 
> ...


Yep otherwise you'd always be looking over your shoulder.
So why all the anti "common sense" to the wider public you sound like fools (no offence).

The two accidents I have refered to in the helmet thread didn't involve vehicles.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yep otherwise you'd always be looking over your shoulder.
> So why all the anti "common sense" to the wider public you sound like fools (no offence).
> 
> The two accidents I have referred to in the helmet thread didn't involve vehicles.



However your post (to which this was a reply did



Justinslow said:


> .... why worry about the drivers anyway?



... or did you mean we should be worrying about drivers when they are not in the vehicles?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Better standards of driving will save more lives than all the PPE we can get.



This is where the motoring lobby wins hands down.....

In any other situation there are lots of steps to remove, or reduce the danger before PPE is used.

Yet when it comes to the roads, it jumps straight to PPE rathere than address the real issues


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> It seems pretty simple to me, if it's dodgy out there do something to make it less dodgy, whether it be turning a light on or putting on a pair of gloves or switching to winter tyres........common sense.


That is tantamount to victim blaming. Victim blamers are the very embodiment of lobotomised shitlarkary.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Its relevance.


That some nobbers think camouflage and other ninja games render people invisible. Whereas only Jedi mind tricks do that.


----------



## flake99please (5 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Slippery slope though.



Agreed, perhaps it is a slippery slope... I prefer to look at it as 'So, now what is your excuse for not seeing me?' as it was back in October with my incident. The driver held his hands up and admitted liability straight away. I wouldnt want to give anyone any excuse other than their negligence for failing to see me. Dont get me wrong, there are some very poor road users out there (bicycles & vehicles alike), and fortunately theyre in the minority.

I agree that we should certainly have more stringent testing done for vehicle drivers of all categories (even mandatory retests after certain periods of time). Perhaps a period spent on a road bike as part of the driving lesson standard could be incorporated?


----------



## oldstrath (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No that's not what I think, as is pretty clear from this thread, every other driver that morning had lights on, they all did their bit.
> What are you going to do about all these "poor drivers"?


So they weren't poor drivers 'because they had their lights on'? If that's your decision criterion, why bother with all this driving test lark?

Look, just put your lights on (go to rosebikes if you want to buy a set that will make mjr happy), wear whatever helmets, hivis, gloves you fancy, ride your bike, and leave other people ride theirs. Whatever you think of them, they almost certainly won't hurt you. If you want to spread meaningful enlightenment, go and pester the motons, who actually cause the dangers.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Dec 2015)

flake99please said:


> . Perhaps a period spent on a road bike as part of the driving lesson standard could be incorporated?



Been mooted before many times, you cut out an awful lot of mobility impaired people who are capable of adapted driving but maybe not cycling, @mickle can no doubt give a far better answer on this and if it would be quite such a problem.

Also why a road bike as opposed to any other sort of bike that people ride?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

Always reminds me of the attitude in the 1930's when the then Transport Minister stated in the House of Commons debate on whether there should be a driving test

He described the idea of such legislation as reactionary and unneccessary



> 7,000 people a year were being killed on the roads, ‘but it is not always going to be like that. People are getting used to new conditions.
> 
> ‘Older members of the House will recollect the number of chickens we killed in the early days of motoring. We used to come back with the radiator stuffed with feathers.
> 
> ‘It was the same with dogs. Dogs get out of the way of motor cars nowadays and you never kill one. There is education even in the lower animals. These things will right themselves.’




Good to see that some 80 years later it is still the responsibility of us lower animals to get out of the way of the motorist


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> However your post (to which this was a reply did
> 
> 
> 
> ... or did you mean we should be worrying about drivers when they are not in the vehicles?


I'm assuming you do have lights or "brighter than dark" gear on your low rider, otherwise if it were me I'd be worried id get run over as I would be even lower on the road and even less visible. 
If I went out out in dark gear with no lights in gloomy/dark conditions on national speed limit roads then yes I would be rather worried about what's going on around me.

As a driver of (often of large slow) agricultural machinery, cars, vans, motorcycles and cycles, to not make yourself seen seems utterly utterly stupid, but hey maybe that's just me..........


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

Missing the point

I am simply not worried about other drivers

I am aware, but that is entirely different a distinction that seems to be also missed.... Your earlier quote about always looking over my shoulder is standard practice for any road user (or should be) to gain the awareness of what is around you




What also worries me is that there is no "brighter than dark" gear, most fluorescent clothing functions on a light wavelength that is absent at night and therefore no use!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The two accidents I have refered to in the helmet thread didn't involve vehicles.



Would they therefore fit your thread title better than a ninja that nobody ran into and who as far as all of us can tell didn't fall off of their own accord

I refer you to all manner of posts all over the site on propelling machinery (whether by internal combustion engine or human power) in an attentive manner and within the limits of personal competence.


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Slippery slope though.


To what - compulsory hi vis?
Just like the paranoia about compulsory helmet wearing?

So it goes something like this- shoot we mustn't do it because then it will be seen as normal, then it will be made law?


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> ...
> What also worries me is that there is no "brighter than dark" gear, most fluorescent clothing functions on a light wavelength that is absent at night and therefore no use!



Pretty much (probably all) fluorescent cycling gear I've seen also has reflectives too, so that point is moot.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> Pretty much (probably all) fluorescent cycling gear I've seen also has reflectives too, so that point is moot.



The question was about bright clothing

Not all bright cycling gear combines with reflectives


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

There is also the moot point that on a recumbent most reflective clothing is masked by the seat and panniers do again useless


----------



## Justinslow (5 Dec 2015)

User13710 said:


> How many more times? No one has said people must not use lights on their bikes. This is very poor trolling from you yet again.


And I didn't mention lights in that post, I was questioning what the "slippery slope" was? And as the post being referred to concerned hi viz............


----------



## OskarTennisChampion (5 Dec 2015)

Bollo said:


> I wear black on the outside, because black is how I feel on the inside.



It's official,Steven Morrissey is a mad keen cyclist,under the guise of Bollo


----------



## OskarTennisChampion (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> It's ok, @mjray is criticising me for running "insufficient" lights even though I have two USB bright lights pointed not too high so I can see where I'm going and a strobing LED to make me more visible and two strobing LEDs on the rear!
> Apparently I'm not allowed to comment on other cyclists for dumb attire and lighting (lack of) because I have these "insufficient" lights, go figure.



I hate these flashing lights,they are more of a distraction than good.
They almost have a magnetic pull to your eyes,thus not concentrating on anything else.


----------



## PMarkey (5 Dec 2015)

Just spotted this  which appears to show that if your not looking you won't see in all honesty 

Paul


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> To what - compulsory hi vis?
> Just like the paranoia about compulsory helmet wearing?
> 
> So it goes something like this- shoot we mustn't do it because then it will be seen as normal, then it will be made law?



If you were actually aware of the definition of paranoia you would realise that you are titally wrong

The reality is that there are regular attempts to shift responsibility by enforcing helmets and hiviz

But you have been made aware of this on many occasions, so I suspect it will fail to sink in this time as well


----------



## Pat "5mph" (5 Dec 2015)

User said:


> The slippery slope is the ongoing shift of responsibility from those who pose the danger onto those who are vulnerable to the danger being posed.


This very true, only there's no slippery slope.
Imo we are already at the bottom of the slope, when policemen advice (me) to wear hi-viz on a bright morning as "ah, but drivers won't see you".
It is accepted that drivers do not see cyclists. Why?
As many do, I hi-viz and light up like the proverbial Christmas tree, find myself doing it with less conviction more and more though, I'll rather avoid traffic, which, I know, is wrong in other ways.
Also, many times we are seen all right, only drivers still pull out on us or are too impatient to overtake safely.
@Justinslow the ninja cyclist is an extreme example, of course we must have lights after dark.


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> To what - compulsory hi vis?
> Just like the paranoia about compulsory helmet wearing?
> 
> So it goes something like this- shoot we mustn't do it because then it will be seen as normal, then it will be made law?


Well, yes actually.


----------



## boydj (5 Dec 2015)

Lights at night are a given and reflectives are useful in unlit areas. But all the hi-viz in the world won't protect against the driver who's not paying attention. After being taken out twice when dressed as a model of the careful cyclist I realised that the best protection is to adopt road positioning to ensure as far as possible you are seen, regardless of what you are wearing.


----------



## Apollonius (5 Dec 2015)

boydj said:


> the best protection is to adopt road positioning to ensure as far as possible you are seen, regardless of what you are wearing.


Absolutely. People see something moving across their field of vision far more easily than something static. Ride in a visible position.

I was thinking about this when driving the other day. On a miserable day in Wednesfield (probably the only sort available) I was surprised to see cars moving cautiously round something in the road. As I drove up, I noticed a truck had shed some bits of broken paving slab - about the size of a packet of cigarettes. All the same, visible in the rain and murk to car drivers. Maybe they represented a threat to the car? My point is they saw them clearly. 

But a cyclist cannot be seen?


----------



## Lonestar (5 Dec 2015)

OskarTennisChampion said:


> I hate these flashing lights,they are more of a distraction than good.
> They almost have a magnetic pull to your eyes,thus not concentrating on anything else.



Cars are more of a distraction for me.


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> so in an attempt to take this daft thread off topic and into an area worth discussing... why is a set of bike lights that do not carry the BS kite mark 'insufficient' ?


They're not sufficient to count as legally lit simply because the law says it must carry the BS or equivalent European marking - unless it only has a 1-4Hz flash mode of 4cd or more, or if it's a headlight on a vintage bicycle. I don't think it entirely makes sense, but that is what is required to be legal and everything else is a matter of opinion (for example, I think flashing lights are daft because a motorist may glance when they're in the "off" phase).



> Back in the days if D batteries and bulbs i had various sets of bike lights which all had a pretty little kite mark stamped on them... but gawd the lights were sh!te, especially after about 20 minutes when a rich tea biscuit would have been brighter.


Yeah, I've done my time grubbing along searching for the road with old D-cell lights and that's overstating it slightly but no, they weren't good. It's rather disappointing that lights now aren't absolutely perfect with the brighter LEDs, but they aren't.



> I've never noticed a single kite mark on any of my LED bike lights, but they certainly seem to work a lot better than the old (pre-LED) ones. They may not have a kite mark but i can see in front of me and can be seen, for hours and hours rather than a mere 20-30 minutes... so what's so insufficient about them??? @mjray


Most commonly, the beam cut-off is too far above the brightest spot, so you have the awful choice of whether to aim it closer to your wheel than you really want, or to aim it where you want it and consequently dazzle oncoming road users, which is rather rude when it's a cyclist and inviting serious injury when it's a motorist.

There are a few lights with good lenses and no standard marking, but they seem depressingly rare. The cycling light market seems almost completely broken, with shops selling mostly awful lights marketed on meaningless lumen and Watt statistics, with most cyclists either not caring whether they're nasty to others or disagreeing that it is nasty to shine a light in others' eyes.



MontyVeda said:


> Does anyone know the costs involved in getting products tested to British Standards??? I can't see it being a free service.


It's £90 for the spec, so I doubt it's cheap, but it's a one-off product development cost. I suspect getting a German K marking may be cheaper and better-respected than our outdated standards.



growingvegetables said:


> IF drivers very definitely see cyclists dressed in black, riding black bikes, without lights - and give them a wide berth, how come do they decide to come so close to me, lit up like a ****ing Xmas tree, high-vis waistcoat/arm bands/ankle bands, and wheel lights?
> 
> Simples - I have lit myself up so that they can improve their aim! Sure, it's a tiny minority, but I do get pissed off when unlit ninja is given space, and I get the punishment pass.


You may be joking, but you're effectively peacocking, making it easy for motorists who aren't paying full attention to look at your wonderful plumage and, as I was told when learning, they steer where they stare!

I feel that good steady lights which you can see by and be seen by, ideally with a back light with a large illuminated surface that makes it easy for others to judge position and distance, plus the distinctive dancing pedal reflectors (for front/back) and wheel reflectors (for side) are sufficient. Any funny shaped clothing on top of the vehicle is a distraction. If they can't see the lights and reflectors, they probably aren't going to see anything you do and that's a different problem!


----------



## Lonestar (5 Dec 2015)

Funny saying that about pedal reflectors...Seen quite a few young cyclists recently only noticeable by their pedal reflectors lit up by my front lights.

I didn't do one much of a favour tonight at Bow...on his mobile dressed all in black/no lights,I was behind him and he pulled right and there was a bus behind us,didn't see him till late,probably didn't know he was in front of me.Hope the bus driver didn't get a fright.


----------



## Dan B (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> So what should I tell my kids?


You could start by telling them to look where they're driving and to ensure they can stop within the distance they can see to be clear


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2015)

Dan B said:


> You could start by telling them to look where they're driving and to ensure they can stop within the distance they can see to be clear


And to wait until they've got a licence, unless it's on a private track


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> And you wonder why cyclists get a hard time with attitudes like that?


Do you mean attitudes like the pictured "buy and wear this ugly stuff with reflective surfaces unlike any vehicle else you're invisible" or like criticising the advertisers of such junk?



> So to take it back to my children - should I tell them when out riding in dark conditions don't bother with lights and wear dark clothing?


Tell them to use lights if it's dark, but maybe also teach them how to tell if the sun is above the horizon or where to look up the time that happens, which is before 8am in Suffolk at the moment. Tell them the clothing is irrelevant if their bike is properly lit and reflectored and they should not listen to the bad motorists who say their friends will kill anyone who doesn't wear ugly clothes that identify them as non-motorists.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Oh this has really cheered me up guys, thanks for joining the thread flya. 

Do please refrain from "lowering yourself" to reasoned debate and rational thinking.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Oh this has really cheered me up guys, thanks for joining the thread flya.
> 
> Do please refrain from "lowering yourself" to reasoned debate and rational thinking.


forget reasoned debate and rational thinking...common sense is all you need...that's where you're going wrong.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Cool, but these things escalate badly and the thread will be locked down in seconds, an element of control is required in these discussions! Nice to know I'm not alone though........


i know...i got one shut down.....i'm not proud of my actions won't happen again.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> typical dan b bullshit


Which bit of looking where one is going and being able to stop within the distance one can see to be clear do you disagree with?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> forget reasoned debate and rational thinking...common sense is all you need...that's where you're going wrong.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> Which bit of looking where one is going and being able to stop within the distance one can see to be clear do you disagree with?


i don't disagree with it...but seeing a lit bike at 200m...is a lot better than seeing an unlit bike at 50m....wouldn't you agree?....common sense really...more time to react...more time to think....common sense really.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> i don't disagree with it...but seeing a lit bike at 200m...is a lot better than seeing an unlit bike at 50m....wouldn't you agree?....common sense really...more time to react...more time to think....common sense really.


So, the lesson is... just slow the fark down and don't hit anyone, right? Just trying to get across this 'common sense' stuff.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> So, the lesson is... just slow the fark down and don't hit anyone, right? Just trying to get across this 'common sense' stuff.


you're kind of getting it....but of course if you're a driver there is no reason to slow dramatically in the dark,only when you see something that is an obstacle or something that could potentially become an obstacle


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> you're kind of getting it....but of course if you're a driver t*here is no reason to slow dramatically in the dark*,only when you see something that is an obstacle or something that could potentially become an obstacle



How about not killing people? Or going slow in the first place, so that no dramatic slowing is required? Radical nancy-boy stuff, I know.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> How about not killing people? Or going slow in the first place, so that no dramatic slowing is required? Radical nancy-boy stuff, I know.


yes...but slowing down in the dark is not the law...speed limits apply 24hrs..you can't have cars travelling at 30mph on a 60 road..carnage would ensue


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> yes...but slowing down in the dark is not the law...speed limits apply 24hrs..you can't have cars travelling at 30mph on a 60 road..carnage would ensue


Being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear is the law. HTH. There's no such thing as a 60mph road - only a road on which 60mph is the _maximum _allowed speed. Which obviously means you should be travelling at a lower speed in most conditions. It doesn't matter in the slightest to anyone except impatient drivers if they can't go 60mph. Pretty ghey stuff, eh?


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> yes...but slowing down in the dark is not the law...speed limits apply 24hrs..you can't have cars travelling at 30mph on a 60 road..carnage would ensue


Come on be serious. The silly sods go at walking pace on the 40-limit road past my house every morning and evening and carnage doesn't ensue. It's more of a problem when they do 60 in the 40 limit and lose it going over the bridge - I think so far one house and a bus stop have been lost that way, plus a bridge parapet which has been replaced with an oh-so-picturesque concrete one... we can't have nice things because motorists destroy them.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> Being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear is the law. HTH. There's no such thing as a 60mph road - only a road on which 60mph is the _maximum _allowed speed. Which obviously means you should be travelling at a lower speed in most conditions. It doesn't matter in the slightest to anyone except impatient drivers if they can't go 60mph. Pretty ghey stuff, eh?


obviously i'm not getting through...a road that carries a speed limit of 60mph allows vehicles to travel at that speed regardless of conditions and still be driving within the law...whether a driver chooses to slow down due to conditions is a personal choice after assessment of the driving conditions.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> obviously i'm not getting through...a road that carries a speed limit of 60mph allows vehicles to travel at that speed regardless of conditions and still be driving within the law...whether a driver chooses to slow down due to conditions is a personal choice after assessment of the driving conditions.


You're not really getting the 'maximum' thing, then? A less charitable person might conclude that you were not fit to drive a car on public roads. Being a homophobic nobber is neither here nor there in this regard, except that I strongly suspect a correlation.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> obviously i'm not getting through...a road that carries a speed limit of 60mph allows vehicles to travel at that speed regardless of conditions and still be driving within the law...


http://highwaycode.info/rule/125 - "The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is *dangerous*..."

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 2 - "A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle *dangerously* on a road or other public place is *guilty of an offence*."

So actually it's pretty clearly outside the law... as if anyone was really unsure. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## flake99please (6 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Also why a road bike as opposed to any other sort of bike that people ride?



Should have read, spend some time on the road, on a bike.


----------



## slowmotion (6 Dec 2015)

I don't know if the parishioners will think I'm being too charitable or too stupid, but I think that @Justinslow's original post might have been faintly to do with taking some kind of personal responsibility for one's own safety rather than delegating it to others. Anyway, I'm just off for a spot of Dad Dancing on the local level crossing. On previous occasions the eagle-eyed train drivers have sounded their horns and I've staggered off the line with a few seconds to spare. No harm done.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I don't know if the parishioners will think I'm being too charitable or too stupid, but I think that @Justinslow's original post might have been faintly to do with taking some kind of personal responsibility for one's own safety rather than delegating it to others. Anyway, I'm just off for a spot of Dad Dancing on the local level crossing. On previous occasions the eagle-eyed train drivers have sounded their horns and I've staggered off the line with a few seconds to spare. No harm done.


Yes it was...........

But to go to @earlestownflyas post - if I'm on a national speed limit road as a driver and go round a tight bend, my speed will drop to say 40 or 30 or whatever - not still be at 60, even at this slower speed you'd be onto a dimly unlit cyclist in a "flash", as a cyclist it's common sense to give yourself a fighting chance to be seen, not rely on the drivers super eyesight to save the day.
Of course accidents will happen whatever the scenario, take this one-
Young freshly qualified driver hits and kills cyclist at night (don't know what he was wearing or if he had lights on). Everybody jumps to conclusions and blames the young driver, being a young driver and struggling with the insurance he accepted a lower quote but had a "black box" data logger fitted as part of the deal. It showed he was doing 25mph completely safely, the cyclist was stoned and "all over the road" apparently. Obviously, dangerous driving could still take place, even at 25 mph but in this case it didn't.
Maybe that's what we need as motorists - "black boxes" or cameras recording "in car" and out onto the road to make motorists "change their ways" - stop using phones, putting on make up etc etc and come to our rescue when we are accused of wrong doing.
Just saying "we don't need to make ourselves seen" is plainly dumb IMO.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Maybe that's what we need as motorists - "black boxes" or cameras recording "in car" and out onto the road to make motorists "change their ways" - stop using phones, putting on make up etc etc and come to our rescue when we are accused of wrong doing.



Interesting idea.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Good job no one is saying that then.


Yes but they are, on many occasions posters have said there's no need to wear bright clothes, even going as far as to say people who advocate hi viz are idiots!
My op stated the guy had no lights on and was wearing dark clothes, changing either of these things would have made him more visible. We can argue till the cows come home about whether the light levels warranted these changes.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yes but they are, on many occasions posters have said there's no need to wear bright clothes, even going as far as to say people who advocate hi viz are idiots!
> My op stated the guy had no lights on and was wearing dark clothes, changing either of these things would have made him more visible. We can argue till the cows come home about whether the light levels warranted these changes.



People who think hi viz clothing makes cyclists safe are not aware of the facts.

Advertising to the world this untruth is not a great idea.

Cyclists are virtually powerless to protect themselves from car drivers.

Drivers are virtually omnipotent when it comes to not killing cyclists.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Interesting idea.


Yeah obviously these are available already, but not mandatory. 
Holistically - better training, better policing, use of monitoring equipment = better driving?
Cyclists doing their bit can't hurt can it?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yes it was...........
> 
> But to go to @earlestownflyas post - if I'm on a national speed limit road as a driver and go round a tight bend, my speed will drop to say 40 or 30 or whatever - not still be at 60, even at this slower speed you'd be onto a dimly unlit cyclist in a "flash", as a cyclist it's common sense to give yourself a fighting chance to be seen, not rely on the drivers super eyesight to save the day.
> Of course accidents will happen whatever the scenario, take this one-
> ...



The tight bend. If it is as tight as you make out to be on a cyclist "in a flash"
A) why had the driver not seen the cyclist before the bend if so immediately close upon them after it. B) basic physics, light goes in straight lines, how would that assist either party round your tight bend? and C) all the bright clothing or reflectives in the world only work when light or eyes catch them.

You imply 30-40 on an NSL road is abnormally slow, not at a tight bend it isn't.

Imagine the scenario of broken down car or driver replacing a flat tyre or you on your previously mentioned tractor having not secured a load quite right and there being random debris/ big hay bales in the road that a driver is onto in a faster flash than a moving target. Who's responsibility then takes precedence in avoidance of an incident/accident/collision/call it what you will - The inanimate or the 'blind' in motion?

Young driver & black box: is that real or another one intended just to try and make a point. its as likely there would be some form of CCTV or other road views along the path of the driver or cyclist route to the scene that Police would enquire into if there wasn't the black box, do you suggest the driver would simply and passively accept their perceived wrongdoing without a fight or putting the prosecution to proof of their hypothesis if innocent and facing a conviction? Equally there is a similar 'popular' prejudice against cyclists so in this scenario it is 2 pariah groups cancelling each other out.

+1 to black boxes, but how long before people find a way to fiddle them, like tachographs etc

Last inaccurate hyperbole: +1 to @User Nobody is saying anything of the sort, just trying to suggest that there are 2 sides to this coin and the side you accept the least and have fewer answers to solve is the side that will do the most good, not just to cyclists but to pedestrians, joggers, people waiting at roadside bus stops, animals, road signs, houses. Anything that gets in the way of drivers who are inattentive or have exceeded the bounds of their/vehicles capability whether lit and vizzed or not.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah obviously these are available already, but not mandatory.
> Holistically - better training, better policing, use of monitoring equipment = better driving?



Possibly. But I don't think you can enforce continual monitoring, I do think it would be a good idea to bring it in with fully automated cars. People don't like things to change, so if there is a step change like automated cars, bring it in then.

Training - may help, but this needs a big change. People resit driving tests a ludicrous number of times and are allowed on the road. IMO five failed tests means you are not trustworthy with heavy machinery like cars.

Significant differences will only be made if significant changes are made - the dangerous drivers and number of cars are the key factors.

*Everything* else is window dressing.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> The tight bend. If it is as tight as you make out to be on a cyclist "in a flash"
> A) why had the driver not seen the cyclist before the bend if so immediately close upon them after it. B) basic physics, light goes in straight lines, how would that assist either party round your tight bend? and C) all the bright clothing or reflectives in the world only work when light or eyes catch them.
> 
> You imply 30-40 on an NSL road is abnormally slow, not at a tight bend it isn't.
> ...


The story is real, I'm offended you might think I made it up, it was told to me last night.
CCTV on country roads in Suffolk- please, we don't all live in the city.
You can come up with any hypothetical scenario you like to prove/disprove anything, it comes back to driving using common sense, riding a bike using common sense, riding a horse using common sense, driving/riding according to the conditions blah blah blah. People like you try to over complicate the subject, create an argument where there is none, 
Like I said before, your arguments make you look very foolish and to the non cyclists out there especially, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
If I make myself look foolish by challenging your views, so be it.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yes it was...........
> 
> But to go to @earlestownflyas post - if I'm on a national speed limit road as a driver and go round a tight bend, my speed will drop to say 40 or 30 or whatever - not still be at 60, even at this slower speed you'd be onto a dimly unlit cyclist in a "flash", as a cyclist it's common sense to give yourself a fighting chance to be seen, not rely on the drivers super eyesight to save the day.
> Of course accidents will happen whatever the scenario, take this one-
> ...



No one is saying we don't need to make ourselves seen. What we have said is 
1. In darkness hiviz is irrelevant. 
2. Wearing huge amounts of reflective kit is irrelevant if you have adequate lights and low level reflectors. 
3. Most importantly, worrying about how other cyclists, whom we do not know, light and dress themselves is utterly without purpose. They pose no harm to my welfare, or yours. If you must worry, campaign, protest, do so about the people who pose the objective danger. The motorists.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Dec 2015)

Haha, we shall agree to differ then. Noted you don't have an answer for the inanimate objects or basic physics just personal rudeness.

Non cyclists have a vested interest in finding a suitable scapegoat, its very sad that experienced cyclists can be so one eyed and dogmatic that they help perpetuate this blame over responsibility culture.

Kind shows who is and isn't foolish.

There's nowt as blind as those that refuse to look.

Ride safe however you feel that is best achieved.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

I am flabbergasted at the hapless fools who walk in country lanes at night, without sounding an air raid warning and continually strobing lights.

I feel like I should get in my car, find them and run them down, because I am utterly without power to halt their self-induced doom beneath my wheels.

Oh, the humanity.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> I may well be useless on a bicycle - but I *can* handle a keyboard.



Steve Roberts fitted a keyboard (amongst other bits) to his bicycle:


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

Lets simplify this 
Despite claims otherwise there is a massive difference between questioning the effectiveness of lights / HiViz and ststing they should not be used.

There is also a big difference between individual and "population" level

The point (deliberately?) missed is that ever since the beginning of motoring, there has been a refusal to take responsibility. Form Brabazon's statement to the CTC's arguing against compulsory lighting on the grounds that it shifted responsibility form the driver looking and seeing to the cyclist being seen.

The fault of course is that if the driver is not looking or fails to see / react properly then no amount of lighting or HiViz is going to work


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

The other point is the increasing demands for others to take responsibility

We have demands for livestock to wear HiViz so they can be moe easily seen:






On Hungerford Common there was a demand for grazing cows to wear HiViz and lights at night
In the New Forest, Exmoor and Dartmoor there are similar campaigns for livestock to be wearing HiViz and/ or lights

On the Gower peninsula there were both sheep and cattle wearing HiViz






We move trees and lampposts back from the edge of the road as they are a "hazard", near Guilford they moved 30 historic trees from a main road, because eventhough twelve feet away from the kerb they still posed a threat to motorists!


... and all this because motorists cannot, or will not drive at appropriate speeds and take reasonable care


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> http://highwaycode.info/rule/125 - "The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is *dangerous*..."
> 
> Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 2 - "A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle *dangerously* on a road or other public place is *guilty of an offence*."
> 
> So actually it's pretty clearly outside the law... as if anyone was really unsure. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.


it isn't pretty clear at all...who deems it dangerous?the police?...if they're there to witness it...the driver of the vehicle?...then you have the type of vehicle being driven and it's capabilities....will a sports car go round a bend quicker than a family saloon?.of course it will...will an audi quattro perform safer on a slippery road than a ford focus?of course it will...what's dangerous in one vehicle,won't be dangerous in another vehicle, competent drivers know their cars limitations and adjust their speed according.
The only thing that is clear here is that riding a bicycle without lights, when illumination would be a huge advantage to other road users is highly dangerous.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> it isn't pretty clear at all...who deems it dangerous?the police?...if they're there to witness it...the driver of the vehicle?...then you have the type of vehicle being driven and it's capabilities....will a sports car go round a bend quicker than a family saloon?.of course it will...will an audi quattro perform safer on a slippery road than a ford focus?of course it will...what's dangerous in one vehicle,won't be dangerous in another vehicle, competent drivers know their cars limitations and adjust their speed according.
> The only thing that is clear here is that riding a bicycle without lights, when illumination would be a huge advantage to other road users is highly dangerous.




This post really sums it up for me.

We have a bend and are discussing which car has the better performance and ability to take the corner at speed...... 
Then concludes that the only lesson is that cyclists should have lights, a little ridiculous if the driver is at a speed where they cannot react when the fully lit and HiViz wearing cyclist comes into their vision

What about the most basic, common sense and intuitive thing?

SLOW DOWN


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042181, member: 9609"]If we are in agreement that there is a problem with inattentive drivers and inappropriate speed, and if we are also in agreement that there appears to be little to nothing being done about it; Would it not be wise to try and be a bit more conspicuous until the situation approves?[/QUOTE]

Except that the latter becomes seen as the solution, detracting any attempt to deal with the former

Hungerford Common illustrates this perfectly


Cows in road
Drivers fail to see cows in time and hit them
Farmers campaign for speed calming and speed restrictions to prevent these accidents
Official solution..... Cows wear HiViz and lights


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042181, member: 9609"]If we are in agreement that there is a problem with inattentive drivers and inappropriate speed, and if we are also in agreement that there appears to be little to nothing being done about it; Would it not be wise to try and be a bit more conspicuous until the situation approves?[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it be even better to stop focussing on ineffectual controls?


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> it isn't pretty clear at all...who deems it dangerous?the police?...if they're there to witness it...the driver of the vehicle?...then you have the type of vehicle being driven and it's capabilities....will a sports car go round a bend quicker than a family saloon?.of course it will...will an audi quattro perform safer on a slippery road than a ford focus?of course it will...what's dangerous in one vehicle,won't be dangerous in another vehicle, competent drivers know their cars limitations and adjust their speed according.
> The only thing that is clear here is that riding a bicycle without lights, when illumination would be a huge advantage to other road users is highly dangerous.


Sorry, but cobblers. The roadholding abilities of different varieties of death machine are utterly irrelevant if, just round a blind bend, is a cyclist, a tractor, a mother and baby, a cow, a deer, a fallen tree or any of the othrr things I have seen in 40 years of cycling. Whether these 'hazards' are lit or not is also irrelevant, given that light does not generally go round corners. All that matters is that the driver have enough sense to go slowly. A rare commodity, alas.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042229, member: 9609"]and even worse than that, anything that isn't lit up like a christmas tree gets the blame - its a shite situation and I don't see it improving anytime soon.[/QUOTE]

One of my favourite experiences

I have a "legal" led backed up by a 720 lumen headlight

Approaching junction when taxi pulls out about 10 feet away, thanks to good brakes I stopped with the front chain ring about 8 inches from his door

Pointing out the fully illuminated taxi, I asked why he had not seen me



Driver then explained how it was my fault

Apparently he thought that I was a motorcycle, they always have good brakes and ten feet is more than enough for them to stop

Being on a bike (trike) with inferior brakes and the consequent problems stopping when he pulled out on me was my problem

He really could not understand that it was his best upping out that was the issue

Fortunately when they saw the video, the local licensing office did not agree with him and interviewed him, gave him points and a formal warning


----------



## winjim (6 Dec 2015)

Somebody report this post and get it deleted if it's a bit too macabre, but can anyone see the parallels to this debate?

http://www.businessinsider.com/bodyguard-bulletproof-blanket-for-kids-2014-6?IR=T


----------



## Racing roadkill (6 Dec 2015)

winjim said:


> Somebody report this post and get it deleted if it's a bit too macabre, but can anyone see the parallels to this debate?
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/bodyguard-bulletproof-blanket-for-kids-2014-6?IR=T


Mass shootings are a weekly, yawn fest in the states. Anything that gives the potential victims a chance, has to be applauded. Monocles will be dropped, but get with the programme, these things happen.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042571, member: 9609"]nor you in improving cycling standards[/QUOTE]
Utter fecking irrelavance. This guy, for example was killed by a braindead moton, despite lights, shiny stuff, and so on.
http://road.cc/content/news/172593-driving-ban-and-curfew-driver-who-killed-cyclist

Nothing to do with cycling standards or lighting. Just with allowing braindeads to drive.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Dec 2015)

23 pages in, maybe time to look st the first post again.

It's dark a cyclist wearing all black and has zero lights/reflectors. Conclusion - he can wear whatever he likes, but he should have lights. Can we close the thread now please?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> No one is saying we don't need to make ourselves seen. What we have said is
> 1. In darkness hiviz is irrelevant.
> 2. Wearing huge amounts of reflective kit is irrelevant if you have adequate lights and low level reflectors.
> 3. Most importantly, worrying about how other cyclists, whom we do not know, light and dress themselves is utterly without purpose. They pose no harm to my welfare, or yours. If you must worry, campaign, protest, do so about the people who pose the objective danger. The motorists.


And what I said was - this particular chap was riding in gloomy conditions not darkness.
They pose a danger to my welfare if some other hapless driver takes evasive action and smashes into me however unlikely that might be.
And there we go - blame the motorist again, as it's never the cyclists fault is it? 
Blinkered views you have.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> So why, driving at the moderate speed of 25mph was this young driver not able to avoid the collision and death of the cyclist?


No idea I didn't hear the "ins and outs" of the story, but speculating - as the guy was stoned maybe he veered into the cars path?


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> 23 pages in, maybe time to look st the first post again.
> 
> It's dark a cyclist wearing all black and has zero lights/reflectors. Conclusion - he can wear whatever he likes, but he should have lights. Can we close the thread now please?



This thread is my gift for Christmas! Please don't spoil it


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042793, member: 9609"]so to your mind, there are no cyclists who would be safer by improving their own own standards. ?[/QUOTE]

Reducto ad absurdum


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Maybe this, maybe that. It shows nothing of any use.


you asked the question dude..........


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User13710 said:


> What question? I'm not seeing one.





User said:


> So why, driving at the moderate speed of 25mph was this young driver not able to avoid the collision and death of the cyclist?


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> And what I said was - this particular chap was riding in gloomy conditions not darkness.
> They pose a danger to my welfare if some other hapless driver takes evasive action and smashes into me however unlikely that might be.
> And there we go - blame the motorist again, as it's never the cyclists fault is it?
> Blinkered views you have.



.. and where do you stand on the Hungerford Common Cows?

After all...

Cows / trees / chickens without HiViz and lights pose a danger to my welfare if some other hapless driver takes evasive action and smashes into me however unlikely that might be.
And there we go - blame the motorist again, as it's never the cow's / chicken's / tree's fault is it?

The only blinkered view is the denial of the responsibility of the motorist to drive responsibly


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4042864, member: 9609"]

maybe it should be law that cyclist display a registration plate, they are usually quite reflective and easily spotted by other road users.[/QUOTE]


Why is it then that low speed impacts where cars drive into the back of the one in front form 75% of all traffic accidents, despite this easily seen small plate on teh back of a supposedly easily seen car?

(Admiral Insurance figures)


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The other point is the increasing demands for others to take responsibility
> 
> We have demands for livestock to wear HiViz so they can be moe easily seen:
> 
> ...



Or is it because they cant see them?
Maybe just maybe the farmer/owner just wants to try to protect his animals from getting squashed.

Since others have mentioned the ineffectiveness of hi vis, going as far as to say -


Tin Pot said:


> Actual idiots on bikes.
> 
> Idiots for thinking hi viz makes them safer.



Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions? Yet for cyclists according to the "usual suspects" on here anything remotely brightly coloured is not common sense as the onus is on the motorist to see us?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Why is it then that low speed impacts where cars drive into the back of the one in front form 75% of all traffic accidents, despite this easily seen small plate on teh back of a supposedly easily seen car?
> 
> (Admiral Insurance figures)


Why is it some cyclists smash into the back of parked cars in broad day light?


----------



## simongt (6 Dec 2015)

And a couple of days ago, I saw a young lad on a bmx on the road after dark - and the bmx had decent lights on front and back - !!!!! Shock horror - !! Well done that lad - !!


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Why is it some cyclists smash into the back of parked cars in broad day light?



Because the cars aren't painted in hi viz. Duh.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions?


Actually, those are good questions. The second one is probably "no" and the answer to the first explains why: IIRC, hi vis makes sense in construction where very few things are bright yellow or orange and you want to be seen when viewed by people high up in crane cabs and so on, against a palette of mud and brick and concrete. It makes some sense in railway works, where the vehicles can't change course and braking is slow, so you want to be seen a long way away. But then it's been taken up by police in some countries with little evidence it improves outcomes on the roads, where you're being viewed from a similar height against a background which often includes yellow or red things, or where the main source of UV is often behind the hi vis wearer so it won't fluoresce. I'm sure someone can post a picture of a fluorescent vehicle that's been totalled by a motorist.



> Yet for cyclists according to the "usual suspects" on here anything remotely brightly coloured is not common sense as the onus is on the motorist to see us?


Not entirely. It's common sense that if they don't see a bike with regulation lights and reflectors, they're unlikely to see one merely because the rider is badly dressed too.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Actually, those are good questions. The second one is probably "no" and the answer to the first explains why: IIRC, hi vis makes sense in construction where very few things are bright yellow or orange and you want to be seen when viewed by people high up in crane cabs and so on, against a palette of mud and brick and concrete. It makes some sense in railway works, where the vehicles can't change course and braking is slow, so you want to be seen a long way away. But then it's been taken up by police in some countries with little evidence it improves outcomes on the roads, where you're being viewed from a similar height against a background which often includes yellow or red things, or where the main source of UV is often behind the hi vis wearer so it won't fluoresce. I'm sure someone can post a picture of a fluorescent vehicle that's been totalled by a motorist.
> 
> 
> Not entirely. It's that it's not common sense because if they don't see a bike with regulation lights and reflectors, they're unlikely to see one merely because the rider is badly dressed too.


I would say that's exactly the same scenario on the road - dull Tarmac, dull hedges, dull grass verges, dull cyclist (in more ways than one)
"Very few things are bright yellow or orange" apart from the fecking great diggers, loaders, cranes and other equipment, yeah ok.
And just because something is decked out in hi viz does not mean it carries a "Star Wars" style shield! Of course they will be occasionally involved in accidents.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> This post really sums it up for me.
> 
> We have a bend and are discussing which car has the better performance and ability to take the corner at speed......
> Then concludes that the only lesson is that cyclists should have lights, a little ridiculous if the driver is at a speed where they cannot react when the fully lit and HiViz wearing cyclist comes into their vision
> ...


in the case of the driver not being able to react to a fully lit cyclist...this undoubtedly would be the driver at fault and bad driving...but not necessarily related to the speed the vehicle is travelling at.unfortunately there are some shockingly bad drivers around.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Exactly how big a problem do you think this is?


Probably not very, but it does happen, reasons why a cyclist might do it and reasons why a motorist might do it - both the same, not concentrating on the task at hand.


----------



## mickle (6 Dec 2015)

Hi-viz only works in certain conditions. Also, reflective is different from fluorescent is different from luminous is different from illuminated is different from 'bright' or 'light' coloured.

Ambliances are yellow or fluorescent yellow base colour upon which are stuck retroreflective panels in high contrast colours. In addition, of course, to the usual array of flashy lights. Flouro shows up best at dawn and dusk and certain overcast conditions where UV becomes a greater part of the visible light. Witness flowers brightening up (relatively) when the sun goes down. Reflectives, through the use of millions of tiny glass or plastic spheres bounce light back to source. Headlights, or the sun if it's behind you, that sort of thing. However, neither of the above work when it's dark. And neither work particularly well when it's bright sunlight. In fact, there are certain conditions where fluorescent colours help a body blend in to a complex or busy lanscape. And reflectives only help if the viewer has her lights on.

Hi-viz is very much less effective as a safety aid than some people would like to imagine. Which tells me that we should probably not rely on it too heavily. Personally I prefer to use decent doubled up lights and an array of reflective material attached to my moving bits. It's impossible not to see me if you're looking. And I look like something out of Tron in the beam of a headlight.


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Hi-viz only works in certain conditions. Also, reflective is different from fluorescent is different from luminous is different from illuminated is different from 'bright' or 'light' coloured.
> 
> Ambliances are yellow or fluorescent yellow base colour upon which are stuck retroreflective panels in high contrast colours. In addition, of course, to the usual array of flashy lights. Flouro shows up best at dawn and dusk and certain overcast conditions where UV becomes a greater part of the visible light. Witness flowers brightening up (relatively) when the sun goes down. Reflectives, through the use of millions of tiny glass or plastic spheres bounce light back to source. Headlights, or the sun if it's behind you, that sort of thing. However, neither of the above work when it's dark. And neither work particularly well when it's bright sunlight. In fact, there are certain conditions where fluorescent colours help a body blend in to a complex or busy lanscape. And reflectives only help if the viewer has her lights on.
> 
> Hi-viz is very much less effective as a safety aid than some people would like to imagine. Which tells me that we should probably not rely on it too heavily. Personally I prefer to use decent doubled up lights and an array of reflective material attached to my moving bits. It's impossible not to see me if you're looking. And I look like something out of Tron in the beam of a headlight.


WOW!...i'm in agreement with you...who'd have thought it


----------



## Pat "5mph" (6 Dec 2015)

@User9609 I like your lights for what it's worth 
A while back I was sitting in as ASL, stopped at red lights. It was a dull day, but still, it was broad daylight, with a light rain drizzle.
As it were I was returning from a cycling job, so, of course, lights on, maximum hi-viz. I have the habit of turning and engaging the driver's attention if there's one behind me. There was no one behind. Then a driver arrived and drove into me!
While I agree completely that we must have lights and/or reflectives (simple hi-viz in an urban environment does not stand out ime) I am also convinced that it's not enough to save us from inattentive drivers.
We take our lives in our hands mixing with motorized traffic.


----------



## mickle (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> WOW!...i'm in agreement with you...who'd have thought it


Who the fark are you?


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

like the bloke who stepped out 30m from my car when i was going along a 40mph in the car on an unlit lane near my house...i slammed on the anchors ,i stopped and shouted"WHAT THE F*** WAS THAT?"..then realising it was a copper lowered my tone...but he did have a scotchlite strip jacket...never saw none of that...i just reacted to a dark figure stepping out....he apologised saying he didn't see me coming...how?...i don't know...how you can't see headlights on a pitch black road is beyond me.


----------



## Bollo (6 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Who the fark are you?


Ronnie Pickering!!!!!


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> WOW!...i'm in agreement with you...who'd have thought it


Yes, me too... 
Remember my OP was all about "transitional periods" dark to light, in this case not darkness, not full day light, so would it be a conclusion to @mickle post that if the cyclist had got any of the stuff he uses then he would have been more visible?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> @User9609 I like your lights for what it's worth
> A while back I was sitting in as ASL, stopped at red lights. It was a dull day, but still, it was broad daylight, with a light rain drizzle.
> As it were I was returning from a cycling job, so, of course, lights on, maximum hi-viz. I have the habit of turning and engaging the driver's attention if there's one behind me. There was no one behind. Then a driver arrived and drove into me!
> While I agree completely that we must have lights and/or reflectives (simple hi-viz in an urban environment does not stand out ime) I am also convinced that it's not enough to save us from inattentive drivers.
> We take our lives in our hands mixing with motorized traffic.


Agree, nothing will help you if there is a "bell end" about and you are sharing the road with him/her, oh look we have come back to the OP.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> nothing will help you if there is a "bell end" about and you are sharing the road with him



Looks like that might be the case...



earlestownflya said:


> like the bloke who stepped out 30m from my car when i was going along a 40mph in the car on an unlit lane near my house...i slammed on the anchors ,i stopped and shouted"WHAT THE F*** WAS THAT?"..then realising it was a copper lowered my tone...but he did have a scotchlite strip jacket...never saw none of that...i just reacted to a dark figure stepping out....he apologised saying he didn't see me coming...how?...i don't know...how you can't see headlights on a pitch black road is beyond me.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Agree, nothing will help you if there is a "bell end" about and you are sharing the road with him/her, oh look we have come back to the OP.


No, nothing will help you if there is an inattentive feckwit with a motor vehicle. Even if I, with my 95kg of rugby player frame, ride into you on my pushbike, you'd be extrordinarily unlucky to suffer major injury. That, in summary, is why I care about inattentive feckwits in cars, and really couldn't give a flying fox about (equally idiot ) ninja cyclists.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> No, nothing will help you if there is an inattentive feckwit with a motor vehicle. Even if I, with my 95kg of rugby player frame, ride into you on my pushbike, you'd be extrordinarily unlucky to suffer major injury. That, in summary, is why I care about inattentive feckwits in cars, and really couldn't give a flying fox about (equally idiot ) ninja cyclists.


Well apart from a helmet...............


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Or, alternatively, had everyone else turned their lights off after sunrise, he wouldn't have been so hard to see.


Then we'd all be "bell ends".


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

The Hiviz on emergency vehicles along with blue lights certainly make them visible.....

Yet they still get hit on a regular basis!













Hardly a realistic example for the efficacy?


----------



## earlestownflya (6 Dec 2015)

another pet hate of mine...drivers using headlights when sidelights would suffice..certainly dangerous to the cyclist....as a drivers vision is impaired.. especially to the side of the road....


----------



## mickle (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yes, me too...
> Remember my OP was all about "transitional periods" dark to light, in this case not darkness, not full day light, so would it be a conclusion to @mickle post that if the cyclist had got any of the stuff he uses then he would have been more visible?



Only if the conditions were suitable. ie ; if relatively high levels of UV light made the flouro stand out, or if the 'idiot' in question was being illuminated by reflected light. It's highly feasible that to anyone shining a light at the 'idiot' he was lit up like my neighbour's annual front yard nativity scene. A sight invisible to the OP because his lamp just wasn't pointing in the right direction.


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> No.


I think you're confusing sunrise and dark dull conditions, the lights all the motorists were using that morning (including myself) were not to see where they were going but to make themselves more visible to others, do you actually do much driving?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Only if the conditions were suitable. ie ; if relatively high levels of UV light made the flouro stand out, or if the 'idiot' in question was being illuminated by reflected light. It's highly feasible that to anyone shining a light at the 'idiot' he was lit up like my neighbour's annual front yard nativity scene. A sight invisible to the OP because his lamp just wasn't pointing in the right direction.





Justinslow said:


> I think you're confusing sunrise and dark dull conditions, the lights all the motorists were using that morning (including myself) were not to see where they were going but to make themselves more visible to others, do you actually do much driving?


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Or is it because they cant see them?
> Maybe just maybe the farmer/owner just wants to try to protect his animals from getting squashed.



If you had read the posts you would know the farmers just want drivers to drive at a reasonable speed and take care!

Even though that seems anathema to some





> Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions? Yet for cyclists according to the "usual suspects" on here anything remotely brightly coloured is not common sense as the onus is on the motorist to see us?



A superb argument for vehicles to be done up in HiViz - especially given that 75 % of all accidents have the vehicle a few feet in front at the time!
... perhaps the lack of HiViz on these vehicles explains why they are not being seen?

Who is responsible in these shunts?

The driver in front for lack of a HiViz vehicle or the one behind for npt seeing it?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The Hiviz on emergency vehicles along with blue lights certainly make them visible.....
> 
> Yet they still get hit on a regular basis!
> 
> ...


Yes for probably many reasons, but I guess speed maybe mostly to blame? Let's restrict emergency vehicles speed shall we, no I don't think so........


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Why is it some cyclists smash into the back of parked cars in broad day light?




Ahhh... you are grasping the point at last!

Because of inattentiveness, a failure to make proper observations and react accordingly, like many motorists


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Yes, and in doing so they were making life more dangerous for all non lit road users. Do you actually do much looking?


No Ady old pal I drive a white van remember, I'm a suicidal Kamakazi speed freak or whatever Glen called it a while ago
(Disclaimer, obviously I'm not, totally clean license in nearly 30 years of driving and motorcycling, not even a speed ticket)


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yes for probably many reasons, but I guess speed maybe mostly to blame? Let's restrict emergency vehicles speed shall we, no I don't think so........



Some muppet drives into a bleedin big fire angine, adorned with all the HiViz and blue lights you could want and your answer is to restrict the fire engine?

About as logical as shifting the blame to cyclists for bad driving?


----------



## Justinslow (6 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Some muppet drives into a bleedin big fire angine, adorned with all the HiViz and blue lights you could want and your answer is to restrict the fire engine?
> 
> About as logical as shifting the blame to cyclists for bad driving?


No, read the post it's about as sarcastic as a very sarcastic thing.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

.... and of course we could point out how many deaths and injuries occur to fully adorned road workers?


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I would say that's exactly the same scenario on the road - dull Tarmac, dull hedges, dull grass verges, dull cyclist (in more ways than one)


Yeah but Suffolk is a special case. Most people are riding past flame coloured leaves, bright berries, winter pansies, variegated winter shrubs, lively Christmas shop displays, bright Christmas lights, golden sun...


> "Very few things are bright yellow or orange" apart from the fecking great diggers, loaders, cranes and other equipment, yeah ok.


Yes, the other things they shouldn't drop stuff onto!



> And just because something is decked out in hi viz does not mean it carries a "Star Wars" style shield! Of course they will be occasionally involved in accidents.


In fact, at the same rate as everything else on the roads...


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

My favourite though is in Italy where the "Ladies of the Night" have to wear HiViz!


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Yeah but Suffolk is a special case. Most people are riding past flame coloured leaves, bright berries, winter pansies, variegated winter shrubs, lively Christmas shop displays, bright Christmas lights, golden sun...
> .


Something else that escapes the HiViz fanatics

It is about Contrast between you and the surroundings

If you are cycling near a rape field then yellow will blend in and a dark coulur will give the contrast that will make you visible
Equally if the trees are dark then white would stand out better inthe lack of UV than a bright Yellow HiViz

What you need is a pannier full of different couloured clothing and change each time the surroundings do so


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4043266, member: 9609"]But I guess. @Justinslow is like myself and many other drivers who would not have a problem with poorly lit cyclists or obstacles that are on the road - I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself if I crashed into an object on the road simply because it was not lit and was difficult to see. However I suspect a great deal of drivers would crash into such an object because they are crap drivers / poor eyesight / distracted with mobile phone / not concentrating - and it is these clowns that compel myself to put effort into how visible I am.

And yes I would absolutely love it if those dangerous clowns that plague our roads could be banned from driving, but it aint going to happen any time soon.[/QUOTE]
Agree ^^^^


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

User said:


> So how come you have such limited insight into the business of looking, our limitations in processing a field of visual information, and the importance of relative visibility?


 I don't have those problems, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Who the fark are you?


Someone with an opinion equally as valid as yours.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Someone with an opinion equally as valid as yours.



Not really.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You certainly seem to be displaying a limited understanding of how these things work, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating the simplistic arguments that you have. Just making everything brighter is not the solution.


I'm not saying it will solve all the issues, as others have pointed out including myself - failure to drive any vehicle including bikes competently will probably inevitably result in an accident. The point is, and I go back to the OP, lights and/or brighter more colourful clothing would have made the cyclist more visible to other road users, period. You seem to not even acknowledge that it could help, stubbornness in the extreme.


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> a road that carries a speed limit of 60mph allows vehicles to travel at that speed regardless of conditions and still be driving within the law



I suggest you stop driving until you have had a chance to brush up on the highway code and relevant legislation, as you are flat wrong.


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2015)

It doesn't matter what you wear really, aside from lights in the dark, because:
-A driver who is looking properly will see you no matter what
-A driver who is not looking properly will not see you no matter what.

There is no realistic scenario where high vis will make the difference between being seen and not seen.


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> They're not sufficient to count as legally lit simply because the law says it must carry the BS or equivalent European marking - unless it only has a 1-4Hz flash mode of 4cd or more, or if it's a headlight on a vintage bicycle. I don't think it entirely makes sense, but that is what is required to be legal and everything else is a matter of opinion (for example, I think flashing lights are daft because a motorist may glance when they're in the "off" phase).
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've done my time grubbing along searching for the road with old D-cell lights and that's overstating it slightly but no, they weren't good. It's rather disappointing that lights now aren't absolutely perfect with the brighter LEDs, but they aren't.
> ...



so now... a decent set of lights without a kite mark are not only _insufficien_t, they're _rude_ and _nasty_ too.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

User said:


> No, you are just not getting it. The solution is to make other things less bright and only have those things bright that really need to be. That way people don't have too many competing demands on their attention and can see the important things more readily. In the instance of your OP, the insistence by car drivers on using lights when they are not really needed artificially creates the need to use lights and makes the cyclist into an idiot in your eyes.


Why do we use lights in fog in daylight? Is it to see where we are going or to be seen?

It seems you would like us to live in a very dull monochrome world.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> It doesn't matter what you wear really, aside from lights in the dark, because:
> -A driver who is looking properly will see you no matter what
> -A driver who is not looking properly will not see you no matter what.
> 
> There is no realistic scenario where high vis will make the difference between being seen and not seen.


In your opinion.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> It doesn't matter what you wear really, aside from lights in the dark, because:
> -A driver who is looking properly will see you no matter what
> -A driver who is not looking properly will not see you no matter what.
> 
> There is no realistic scenario where high vis will make the difference between being seen and not seen.


Peripheral vision? Picking stuff out that's not in your direct eye line. Why does industry etc demand it's use, are the powers that be all mental? Do they think it just looks "kinda nice"?


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Did you say something about arguing for the sake of arguing? Have a word with yourself about it.


After you.....


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Peripheral vision? Picking stuff out that's not in your direct eye line. Why does industry etc demand it's use, are the powers that be all mental? Do they think it just looks "kinda nice"?



Movement will be picked up no matter what colour the cyclist is wearing, in daylight, as long as the driver is paying attention. If they are not, then again it won't make any difference what the colour is.

Use in construction is completely different, as has already been explained to you.


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> Movement will be picked up no matter what colour the cyclist is wearing, in daylight, as long as the driver is paying attention. If they are not, then again it won't make any difference what the colour is.



It is not binary - there are many degrees between paying no attention and giving full attention to the road.


----------



## martint235 (7 Dec 2015)

IIRC just having flashing lights makes it difficult for other people to judge the distance to you accurately. Is this not the case?


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4043526, member: 9609"]I have three flashers on the back and I would have thought the scenario you suggest would be impossible, but from the video post earlier, link I slowed it down to a frame by frame situation and low and behold, it happens,









but look at the difference they make ![/QUOTE]
I have two flashers on the rear, but using different flash modes, help to prevent both from not being lit at the same time


----------



## earlestownflya (7 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> I suggest you stop driving until you have had a chance to brush up on the highway code and relevant legislation, as you are flat wrong.


you can suggest what you like, pee wee.


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Dec 2015)

For me one flasher and one constant, the constant being the brighter one.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4043562, member: 9609"]I can't remember who it was, but it was suggested earlier that colours make no differance. here is a still from my video, I don't have lights on the front of my bike, but look how that pink hat stands out, bright red shirt is not very good, and black track suit bottoms are utterly useless. That pink is wonderful in fading light, far better than my hi viz yellow -




and just look at those white railings[/QUOTE]
Not even photographic evidence will please the ney sayers. 
What if - heaven forbid, two unlit dull dressed cyclists came together on a cycle path, road, junction etc, just a thought......how would they see each other?


----------



## jowwy (7 Dec 2015)

29 pages and still going.......


----------



## mjr (7 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> so now... a decent set of lights without a kite mark are not only _insufficien_t, they're _rude_ and _nasty_ too.


You've got that backwards: I wrote that rude and nasty lights are unapproved lights. I acknowledged that there are some OK unapproved lights, but how else can you tell which, short of testing them yourself? Lots of cyclists seem keen to recommend nasty dazzlers.


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Not even photographic evidence will please the ney sayers.
> *What if - heaven forbid, two unlit dull dressed cyclists came together on a cycle path, road, junction etc, just a thought......how would they see each other?*


probably in the very same way in which you saw the _unlit dull dressed ninja _in your opening post.


----------



## winjim (7 Dec 2015)

jowwy said:


> 29 pages and still going.......


Stick with it, they'll be reaching a resolution any minute now.


----------



## Shed_head (7 Dec 2015)

I haven't looked at this thread all weekend (been busy riding my bike) can't believe its still running LOL... Put down the keyboards and get outside! Or back to work


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> You've got that backwards: I wrote that rude and nasty lights are unapproved lights. I acknowledged that there are some OK unapproved lights, but how else can you tell which, short of testing them yourself? Lots of cyclists seem keen to recommend nasty dazzlers.



Good grief have you seen MTB lights?

£500+ in lighting to turn night trails into day time with bike, chest and head mounted lights!

Yes, you would see them coming the other way as you veered into a crowded bus stop full of children...


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> It is not binary - there are many degrees between paying no attention and giving full attention to the road.



Of course, but I am unconvinced that high vis can possibly make the difference between a driver seeing and not seeing a cyclist.


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> you can suggest what you like, pee wee.



What do you mean by "pee wee"?


----------



## Simontm (7 Dec 2015)

I've always wondered about the psychology of hi-viz as in is it too ubiquitous?
A mate calls his hi-viz work jacket his cloak of invisibility and I wonder whether because there is so much of it around, builders, coppers, school kids, cyclists, cows(!), people almost become inured to the colours so mentally it doesn't attract attention any more.
Absolutely no evidence or research on this and am just musing about unintended effects.
Personally, I have found that whether I wear black, blue, orange, lemon, reflective, hi-viz, some people are twats on the road no matter what their transportation, only the possible outcome changes.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Dec 2015)

Simontm said:


> I've always wondered about the psychology of hi-viz as in is it too ubiquitous?
> A mate calls his hi-viz work jacket his cloak of invisibility and I wonder whether because there is so much of it around, builders, coppers, school kids, cyclists, cows(!), people almost become inured to the colours so mentally it doesn't attract attention any more.
> Absolutely no evidence or research on this and am just musing about unintended effects.
> Personally, I have found that whether I wear black, blue, orange, lemon, reflective, hi-viz, some people are twats on the road no matter what their transportation, only the possible outcome changes.



I just think of Only Fools and Horses.

Since that episode theyve found a marketing scam to get rid of all that hiviz paint.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Dec 2015)

Simontm said:


> Absolutely no evidence or research on this and am just musing about unintended effects.





> A 23-year-old woman wept in court as she recalled the moment police told her the lollipop man she hit with her car had died.
> 
> Raymond Elsmore, 82, was struck while helping a pedestrian cross Tempest Avenue, Waterlooville, in 2012.
> 
> ...



Not guilty:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938


----------



## Simontm (7 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Not guilty:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938


That is not what I was pondering about. I was just musing whether, like people get used to trains at the bottom of the garden, people get inured to hi-viz because it is all over the place - not about certain conditions.


----------



## liambauckham (7 Dec 2015)

i wear my sunglasses at night with no lights and dressed head to toe in black on a black bike........ beat that dangerous brian


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yet all the emergency services have it emblazoned across their vehicles, its used on clothing across the construction industry and manufacturing, why? Could it possibly be that these people are easier to see in ALL conditions?



Clearly not:







That is the back-end of a police car that was stationary, with its blue and red warning lights in operation, protecting occupants of a broken down car on a country road but a farkwit driving a coach didn't see it and smashed it into the crash barrier and pushed it along the road for 250 feet.

GC


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Clearly not:
> 
> View attachment 112103
> 
> ...


As has been said there clearly are people about who shouldn't be driving. It's not a regular everyday occurrence though is it? I mean if you can't see the retina burning blue lights flashing what hope is there for anybody?


----------



## glenn forger (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> It's not a regular everyday occurrence though is it?



£1.4m motor insurance claims every day. Drivers routinely collide with walls, trees, bridges, rivers, buildings, people.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> ...I mean if you can't see the retina burning blue lights flashing what hope is there for anybody?



Exactly. So the presence or absence of hi-vis has nothing to do with it, it's drivers not looking. Like that one.


GC


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Exactly. So the presence or absence of hi-vis has nothing to do with it, it's drivers not looking. Like that one.
> 
> 
> 
> GC


Fair enough, if that's what you think, I just don't think it's as clear cut as that. 
What about the bin Lorry driver up your neck of the woods, he didn't see anything because he couldn't, he was unconscious! 
Sometimes sh## happens, most other times it can be avoided - whether that be by using your common sense or by the other party driving better.


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> £1.4m motor insurance claims every day. Drivers routinely collide with walls, trees, bridges, rivers, buildings, people.


No Glen - not a regular occurrence someone smashing the crap out of the rear of a parked police car with blue lights flashing, jeez.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Dec 2015)

Been happening for fifty years old darling:


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No Glen - not a regular occurrence someone smashing the crap out of the rear of a parked police car with blue lights flashing, jeez.


Funnily enough nor is someone knocking off cyclists without hiviz and lights

The figures for accidents do not reflect what should be an increase as the nights darw in and the ninjas emerge


----------



## oldstrath (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Fair enough, if that's what you think, I just don't think it's as clear cut as that.
> What about the bin Lorry driver up your neck of the woods, he didn't see anything because he couldn't, he was unconscious!
> Sometimes sh## happens, most other times it can be avoided - whether that be by using your common sense or by the other party driving better.



That person (no word I want to use to describe him would be acceptable) is an extreme example of the fact that many are incapable of driving well - he is especially bad because he knew of a problem and lied, but I suspect he's at the top end of the curve, rather than out on his own. Serious retesting has to happen sometime.

And yes, i do have what reiver called the 'blinkered view' that it is more important for drivers to change than cyclists. Simple physics - motor vehicles are the cause of the danger because of their kinetic energy and momentum, so it's more vital that they change.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2015)

Personally I find the best visibility aid is an AirZound

A quick blast and it is amazing how visible you become

Stupid overtakes, left hooks are changed dramatically as they realise that there are now people looking at them


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> As has been said there clearly are people about who shouldn't be driving. It's not a regular everyday occurrence though is it? I mean if you can't see the retina burning blue lights flashing what hope is there for anybody?


Selective Attention is a well-documented and reasonably well-understood phenomenon.

Very much a regular everyday occurrence.

Very much the cause of KSI's on UK roads, everyday.


----------



## subaqua (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Fair enough, if that's what you think, I just don't think it's as clear cut as that.
> What about the bin Lorry driver up your neck of the woods, he didn't see anything because he couldn't, he was unconscious!
> Sometimes sh## happens, most other times it can be avoided - whether that be by using your common sense or by the other party driving better.




yeah because in construction wearing Hi Viz means you never get run over by a vehicle. http://www.theconstructionindex.co....s-suspended-jail-sentence-for-banksmans-death

PPE - LAST line of defence .


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Not even photographic evidence will please the ney sayers.



Nor you it seems.


----------



## Crandoggler (7 Dec 2015)

Don't you hate when you're driving down the road and you can't see the hi-viz signage.


----------



## subaqua (7 Dec 2015)

They probably do work. But wouldn't it be much better if people looked out for each other and didn't rely on the hi viz. if everything has hi viz you lose the benefit as it becomes the norm. A bit like DRLs .


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

User13710 said:


> You are quite right, but unfortunately as far as Justin's concerned, if he hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist.


I tend to get selective attention on here...........


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> yeah because in construction wearing Hi Viz means you never get run over by a vehicle. http://www.theconstructionindex.co....s-suspended-jail-sentence-for-banksmans-death
> 
> PPE - LAST line of defence .


Nobody's saying that, but if it's crap why do the HSE demand it nowadays? I've not got an issue with hi viz, I didn't say the guy in the OP needed it. However tonight whilst taking my son to footy training I passed 3 cyclists and a couple of dog walkers wearing the stuff, stood out amazingly, that's not to say I've never seen it before obviously, just never really studied it. One dog walker didn't have any on and was practically invisible (full darkness) nipping in and out of the hedge.


----------



## liambauckham (7 Dec 2015)

its still going


----------



## glenn forger (7 Dec 2015)

I think we're going to get an update on the visibility of everyone justin encounters.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4044784, member: 9609"]of course these incidents will occur, but for every clown that crashes into something so obvious, 1000s will have spotted the hazard earlier and took appropriate action. If this is your argument for cyclists to take no responsibility for themselves then it is ludicrous.

So can I take it that the consensus of opinion from the cycling community is. Any use of lights, hi-viz, bright colours are a total waste of time, The HSE, The Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, The Highway Code, Local Authorities, have all been getting it wrong for years, all wasting money by the bucket full on this nonsense, could it have all been a conspiracy or some get rich plan?

Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that Lights, Hi-Viz and bright colours do not work.?[/QUOTE]


Are you listening to a voice in your head?

GC


----------



## Justinslow (7 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I think we're going to get an update on the visibility of everyone justin encounters.


Some people on here clearly could learn a thing or two!


----------



## liambauckham (7 Dec 2015)

just to add to the flames...... just seen this on another site. Never run a level crossing.....



Spoiler: Cyclist hit by high-speed train




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWfUKqEGiU


----------



## potsy (7 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Is this relevant to the question of visibility?


Yes, the train wasn't wearing hi-viz.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

We have on this forum currently an account by a member that was right hooked and is now in hospital with a broken back. Having seen pictures of this mans bike and read his posts on the lighting threads I strongly suspect that he would have resembled the Coca Cola truck.
We have another account on here from a new member who was also right hooked, if we accept the post at face value it doesn't sound as if they were doing anything they shouldn't have been, they were in the cycle lane and they had lights on. Yet they are concerned that they bear some of the responsibilty because they weren't wearing a hi-viz jacket. 

[QUOTE 4044784, member: 9609"]If this is your argument for cyclists to take no responsibility for themselves then it is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
The argument isn't for cyclists taking no responsibilty for themselves, the argument, as I see it, is that it should be a reasonable expectation that motorists have a responsibilty to drive in a manner where cyclists, pedestrians, chickens, cows and fence posts are not continually being pushed to compete in an arms race which they will inevitably lose. Where the question asked in examples such as the ones above isn't automatically what more could the victim have done.



Crandoggler said:


> Don't you hate when you're driving down the road and you can't see the hi-viz signage.


Isn't road signage reflective?



Justinslow said:


> Some people on here clearly could learn a thing or two!


You're right Justin, for example one of your supporters could try to learn what a speed limit is. However as this thread is about visibilty and responsibility what lessons do you think the people in the two examples above should take from their experiences?


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4044784, member: 9609"]of course these incidents will occur, but for every clown that crashes into something so obvious, 1000s will have spotted the hazard earlier and took appropriate action.[/QUOTE]
And for all we know, 1000s will have spotted the hazard TOO early and subconsciously think they've already addressed it by the time when they should take appropriate action, fail to do so (either deliberately - the old "can I fit through there? Yeah, I can fit through there" - or carelessly) and either crash or near-miss.



> If this is your argument for cyclists to take no responsibility for themselves then it is ludicrous.


I know it's really difficult, but it is possible to argue that something is incorrect without meaning that the polar opposite is correct - this is not black and white (although actually black and white is more visible than hi-vis, not least because the Norfolk police cycling club wear black and white...  )



> So can I take it that the consensus of opinion from the cycling community is. Any use of lights, hi-viz, bright colours are a total waste of time, The HSE, The Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, The Highway Code, Local Authorities, have all been getting it wrong for years, all wasting money by the bucket full on this nonsense, could it have all been a conspiracy or some get rich plan?


Some of those have evidence, others probably are wasting money. I feel it's unlikely to be a conspiracy and while not deliberately, clothing makers and sellers aren't going to turn away buyers - but because the HSE is involved, most seem quite honest about their hi-vis products, much more so than for helmets (my work hi-viz is quite clear that it's only class 2 and not for situations where class 3 is required). I believe the increasing use in unproven situations is because they are facing unacceptable casualty numbers among their workers, but with no political will to tackle bad motoring effectively, they're clutching at straws: we must do something, this is something, so we will do this.



> Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence that Lights, Hi-Viz and bright colours do not work.?


Yes! Few have disputed lights much since CTC lost their campaign against legal compulsion in 1947, but unlit cycling remains a fairly rare contributory factor for collisions (around 2%) whereas I'd expect it to be higher if it mattered. Also, as usual for when "road safety" measures become compulsory despite not addressing the actual problems (bad motorists), there was no noticeable corresponding fall in cyclist casualties.

There some scientific evidence that hi-vis isn't helpful for cycling, such as http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/ and I have read a few studies saying they DO work for construction and railways (which I don't have bookmarked) but not for roadworks.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Dec 2015)

User13710 said:


> You are quite right, but unfortunately as far as Justin's concerned, if he hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist.


He's welcome to buy The Invisible Gorilla at his local bookshop. Now he's heard of it. Very thought provoking, not to say worrying, book.


----------



## subaqua (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Nobody's saying that, but if it's crap why do the HSE demand it nowadays? I've not got an issue with hi viz, I didn't say the guy in the OP needed it. However tonight whilst taking my son to footy training I passed 3 cyclists and a couple of dog walkers wearing the stuff, stood out amazingly, that's not to say I've never seen it before obviously, just never really studied it. One dog walker didn't have any on and was practically invisible (full darkness) nipping in and out of the hedge.


HSE don't demand it. 

the law says you must carry out a risk assessment and apply control measures. on a building site for example there are lots of obstacles obscuring vision so it may be the corner of a jacket gets spotted. hence we say wear it. 

on roads for example enhanced Hi Viz is required because vehicles are moving at a greater speed . 

the HSE have a great website full of advice and really do like busting myths and stopping people using health and safety as an excuse for not wanting to do something. 

on the road however the driver SHOULD be LOOKING at where they are going and driving at a speed where they can safely stop with the visibility they have. 

based on your logic we should paint cars in Hi Viz.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> We have on this forum currently an account by a member that was right hooked and is now in hospital with a broken back. Having seen pictures of this mans bike and read his posts on the lighting threads I strongly suspect that he would have resembled the Coca Cola truck.
> We have another account on here from a new member who was also right hooked, if we accept the post at face value it doesn't sound as if they were doing anything they shouldn't have been, they were in the cycle lane and they had lights on. Yet they are concerned that they bear some of the responsibilty because they weren't wearing a hi-viz jacket.
> 
> 
> ...


Haven't read the one about the broken back, but the other lad with the broken scaphoid some have suggested it could be partially to blame? 
It's all irrelevant anyway, nobody's saying it will give you a "magic force field" just that it may help you be seen! As has been said there are idiots in cars aswell as idiots on bikes as well as idiots in bin lorries.
The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference. Did you not see @User9609 s pic of his pink woolly hat and the bridge clearly visible in his quite dark picture?
Whether people act on this visual information is another story but you can't deny the fact that the person is more visible.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

Can someone ping me if Justin comes up with anything that shouldn't have been put to bed on Page 1?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> on roads for example enhanced Hi Viz is required because vehicles are moving at a greater speed .



This does not apply to cyclists then but to everybody else working in the roads, what's the difference?


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> This does not apply to cyclists then but to everybody else working in the roads, what's the difference?


Many cyclists are wearing class one (basically, a few reflective bands) or class two (two horizontals, two verticals), whereas roadworkers usually wear class three (full body, more bands). Most retailers of proper hi-vis have pages describing it. If you've had any involvement with work hi-vis, then it's quite noticeable that cycling hi-vis retailers often don't explain the types and uses to potential customers - much cycling hi-vis is a fashion accessory, not protective equipment.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> You're right Justin, for example one of your supporters could try to learn what a speed limit is. However as



These people are not "my supporters" they have views which are similar to mine, and are different to yours and others on here.
I'm not running for some sort of presidency!


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> I hope you've got something to occupy your time.... Translating War & Peace into txt spk should do it.


Lol there we go, same old names.....like I said on the helmet debate thread it's tediously boring, if you don't want to read it, jog on.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference. Did you not see @User9609 s pic of his pink woolly hat and the bridge clearly visible in his quite dark picture?
> Whether people act on this visual information is another story but you can't deny the fact that the person is more visible.


Actually, I'll deny it two ways: a pink blob and white railings does not communicate "person" to anyone; and a person is visible or not so I deny that "more visible" has a useful meaning.

If you read back, it's not that colours make no difference, but that the effective colours depends on the background the viewer sees behind you, so you can't win unless you're changing clothes every few yards and the common choice of yellow is poor is many cycling environments.

I didn't comment at the time because I couldn't see anything except white railings on my phone screen, but now I'm at my desk, so let's have a look:
[QUOTE 4043562, member: 9609"]here is a still from my video, I don't have lights on the front of my bike, but look how that pink hat stands out, bright red shirt is not very good, and black track suit bottoms are utterly useless. That pink is wonderful in fading light, far better than my hi viz yellow -





and just look at those white railings[/QUOTE]
Which seems to suggest that white would be best for those low-light conditions, doesn't it?

Why don't you have a light on the front of the bike? Surely that would knock everything else in that picture into a cocked pink hat!


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> These people are not "my supporters" they have views which are similar to mine, and are different to yours and others on here.
> I'm not running for some sort of presidency!


And there was me thinking there was some kind of "them and us" can't think where I got that idea from.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The way some of you lot are carrying on its as if any colourful set up will make no difference.



Here's a very sad story. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35024197

Do you think the people in this story should have been wearing lights or hi-viz or brightly coloured reflective clothing or do you think the driver should have ben paying more attention? Where do you think the responsibilty of a driver not to run somebody over starts? 
As has been said it isn't the case of taking no responsibility for our own safety it's recognising that it is not acceptable that all of the onus is on the vunerable, at some point it has to come down to drivers paying attention and looking properly and if visibilty is compromised due to weather conditions or light levels for them to slow down and be even more attentive not, as has been suggested up thread, to drive at the speed limit no matter what.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Actually, I'll deny it two ways: a pink blob and white railings does not communicate "person" to anyone; and a person is visible or not so I deny that "more visible" has a useful meaning.
> 
> If you read back, it's not that colours make no difference, but that the effective colours depends on the background the viewer sees behind you, so you can't win unless you're changing clothes every few yards and the common choice of yellow is poor is many cycling environments.
> 
> ...


Except a zillion pages ago you told me my white van was useless!!! Make your mind up, is it any wonder we get confused at your ramblings?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> And you wonder why people think you're a bit of a nobber....


Charming to the last! That's the second time in two days I've attracted an abusive comment from "the usual suspects" like I said in the post that got deleted because it contained @User abusive post - you are showing your true colours for all of cyclechat to see........


----------



## oldstrath (8 Dec 2015)

Justin:
I won't answer for anyone else, but I don't think you're a 'nobber', but I do disagree with you on a number of grounds. Fine, you've found a way to dress and behave that makes you feel safe on a bike, but:
1. You seem to believe that cycling is, itself, a dangerous activity. It isn't, almost all of the dangers faced by cyclists are imposed by the presence of motor vehicles and the way they are driven.
2. You seem to believe that cyclists and motorists share equal responsibility for safety. Without claiming that cyclists bear no responsibility, I would put the bulk of it onto the people who actually pose most of the dangers. The sad story of Fossyant here, and of the Dorset headteacher killed on a clear road, show plainly that no amount of 'good practice' can avoid injury in the face of inattentive people at the wheel of large fast-moving things.
3. You are prone to describing people who don't follow your preferred behaviour as fools, or worse. Makes complaining of being called 'a bit of a nobber' a tad hypocritical.
4. You appear to believe in collective responsibility for cyclists, which is offensive nonsense on stilts. if you doubt this, do tell me what you plan to do about the braindead feckwit in a white van (you know, just like you) who passed me within touching distance yesterday morning?


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> it's tediously boring



You said it. What would be nice if, having started the inevitable gazillionth thread on the same old tired and discredited subject, the reactions to it gave the initiator of the discussion even the slightest pause for thought.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> 33 pages, several reiterations of the statement that no one is saying it is a good idea to ride without lights, and it still continues with the relentless progress of a juggernaut. It doesn't give much hope for any thought at all.
> When you are done with War and Peace, I reckon I could give a Text speak version of Ulysses a go.



I almost started writing something serious on the subject (nocturnal cyclist conspicuity, I mean, not Ulysses), about which I have been having additional thoughts during a period of wintry introspection, which have led to my becoming determinedly even less razzly-dazzly. I have stretched out the life of batteries for my Fenix torch beyond all previous limits. However I haven't really got time, and such efforts are largely wasted on Mr Slow anyway. It seems a more appropriate response to his intractability and pig-headedness to recycle some old writing on the subject, so here are some words I wrote for our local campaign rag yonks ago...


*Attack of the Space Lemons*

Don't worry – I haven't branched into Sci-Fi short stories. Some of you will recall that I have been somewhat scathing in these pages about the colour pink when it comes to bicycles and cycling accessories. But in fact I don't dislike pink as such – I merely object to its arbitrary association with the feminine. There is, however, one colour that really gets my goat, and we have entered its peak season. I'm talking, of course, about hi-vis yellow. I think it's fair to say that no-one chooses hi-vis yellow clothing for aesthetic reasons. There are some good yellows about, and those with the right attitude and a suitable skin tone might be able to carry off a raceleader's jersey with aplomb, or sport a jaunty headscarf that looks like some kind of homage to Kandinsky. But no one chooses a garment thinking “this is great, but would look better if it were the shade of radioactive custard”.*

So, given that anyone lately taking a constitutional could be forgiven for wondering why The Swans seem to be permanently at home to Norwich City, something else must be going on. It's worth reminding ourselves for a moment that this stuff isn't compulsory. Cyclists have been persuaded, or persuaded themselves, that it's for their own good, and there are signs that the sulphurous epidemic is spreading to pedestrians. It wouldn't be stretching a point to suggest that we have already reached a situation where hi-vis is de rigueur for cyclists in the eyes of most drivers, all policymakers, a substantial number of cyclists themselves, and the majority of casual observers. We've been here before, with helmets – the tyranny of common sense is upon us again.

It's at this point that we might get all misty-eyed about a time when not only did high-vis yellow not even exist in nightmares, but it seemed perfectly sensible for the CTC to campaign against cyclists being legally obliged to equip their bikes with lights. But that historical moment has passed, and we are not here to indulge in a fit of nostalgia. With the advances that have been made in LED technology, decent lights are cheap and easily obtained – bicycle light technology has not just kept up with the law, but outpaced it. Roads are shared public space, and we share a duty to each other and to ourselves to be visible when we are using them.

And there, I'm afraid, my Christmas-tree tendencies end. As well as being horrible, hi-vis yellow is unnecessary in the daylight and useless at night. I like a bit of retro-reflective trim (inconspicuous by day, effective by night), and am impressed with truly striking design such as Foska's wonderful skeleton jersey. But as an online acquaintance of mine wrote recently, “I have decided not to participate in the high-visibility arms race that will end up in peds and cyclists dressed like something out of Close Encounters […] and all cars running high beam headlights during daylight hours, [and] I don't want drivers taught to expect that the other road users sharing the space will be the same colour as a space lemon.*

There's a creeping tendency to shift the responsibility for safety onto the more vulnerable road user– have a look at the DfT's “Lighten Up” game for children if you doubt this**. This, of course, was what the CTC was really fighting all those years ago. Ask yourself why no-one demands that cars are painted hi-vis yellow. For me, there is too much illumination, not too little. Anyone who thinks that dazzling car headlights are for the benefit of pedestrians has not walked home along a country road at night. They are, however, yet another excuse for motorists brashly to announce their presence whilst not having to think about their speed. When everything that is deemed to be worthy of drivers' notice must be illuminated or gaudy, the rest of the world fades into the background or disappears into shadows and blind spots. Let's dim the lights and mute the colours a little, and take the trouble to look around us again.​_
——-o0o——
* The imagery indicated, as well as the quotation, is shamelessly borrowed from the cyclist known online as “Ravenbait - the cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley” www.ravenfamily.org/sam
** http://talesoftheroad.direct.gov.uk/be-bright.php _


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

No helmets!!! Wont somebody think of the children??!!?


----------



## Glow worm (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> So, given that anyone lately taking a constitutional could be forgiven for wondering why The Swans seem to be permanently at home to *Norwich City*, something else must be going on.​


​ 
I think that's possibly about the only fixture we might have a chance of winning at the moment!

Really good article TC- spot on.

As it happens I have ditched my 'rotweiler' front light this winter for a more subtle 'Cateye Volt 100' light which does the job fine (and it has a 'dimmer' switch I use when approaching oncoming pedestrians, cyclists and yes motor vehicles). As for high- viz- pah!

I do still have one of these beauties though which Justin is welcome to borrow as he pedals the lanes of Suffolk:


----------



## Shed_head (8 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> No helmets!!! Wont somebody think of the children??!!?



Lol I remember this as a kid, brought back some funny memories! So what we can work out from this is we all need Silver all in ones??... I don't think they even did road helmets at that time. I used to race BMX and had a YES BMX helmet instead


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

Glow worm said:


> I do still have one of these beauties though which Justin is welcome to borrow as he pedals the lanes of Suffolk:
> View attachment 112147



Eeeeeeeewwww!


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

Only idiots don't ride with lights at night.

Car drivers should make sure they don't drive into anything by looking where they are going and not smash into anything lit or otherwise.

It's entirely possible, even desirable, for both these to be true.


----------



## Shed_head (8 Dec 2015)

Something like this


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Why do we use lights in fog in daylight? Is it to see where we are going or to be seen?



Both.

But it's illegal to use them when the conditions don't require them, which supports @User 's point.


GC


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> Something like this
> View attachment 112150


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Only idiots don't ride with lights at night.



I dispute that. But more importantly, everyone knows that it's not uncommon for cyclists to be unlit or poorly lit, _for whatever reason_. Motorists demonstrate that they know this by banging on about it at every opportunity. So everyone admits that they know they are reasonably likely, in the course of any journey, to encounter a road user who is vulnerable and relatively inconspicuous, but motorists refuse to accommodate this reality because it obliges them to take responsibility for the danger they present. What's the difference, from the point of view of the care required from motorists, whether someone is an 'idiot', or is a child/someone whose battery ran out/someone who was unexpectedly late home/someone who swapped bikes and forgot to swap lights/someone whose rear light bounced off and broke when they hit a pothole/etc?


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You are way too late with the popcorn.


I just felt that as we are about to combine hi viz with helmets, another delivery of popcorn is probably called for.


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> , or is a child/someone whose battery ran out/someone who was unexpectedly late home/someone who swapped bikes and forgot to swap lights/someone whose rear light bounced off and broke when they hit a pothole/etc?


All sounds to me like a lot of excuses to do something stupid and illegal.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> All sounds to me like a lot of excuses to do something stupid and illegal.


Meh. What's your answer to the question about what the difference is from a motorist's perspective?


----------



## benb (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4045584, member: 9609"]there seems to be only Justin and Myself who are saying it is a bad idea to ride in the gloaming in dark clothes without lights[/QUOTE]

Find one post where someone says it's a good idea, or even irrelevant, to not have lights in the dark.


----------



## liambauckham (8 Dec 2015)

like the energizer bunny it just keeps going on and on and on


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

Shed_head said:


> Lol I remember this as a kid, brought back some funny memories! So what we can work out from this is we all need Silver all in ones??... I don't think they even did road helmets at that time. I used to race BMX and had a YES BMX helmet instead


Yes I remember it too, I still remembered most of the words too, very effective isn't it?

However, viewing it again does make me reconsider things and whilst spending the last hour painting a wall I imagined the following conversation;

"Boss, we've got a problem with cyclists."
"Really? I know they're generally eccentric or working class but I've never thought they were a problem."
"Well the thing is that motorists keep driving into them, apparently they can't see them very well."
"I see, well that's not good. So what do we need to do? Could we get the motorists to slow down a bit, maybe run a campaign to encourage drivers to keep a better eye out, you know, like the motorbike one?"
"Well I guess we could, but there's an awful lot more motorists than cyclists, why don't we tell the cyclists that _they _are responsible for the motorists seeing them. Things like painting your bike, wearing bright colours and sticking reflective strips over everything in sight including themselves."
"I love it, lets get on it right away, anything else we can bung in there while we're at it?"
" How about helmets for cyclists?"
"Don't be ridiculous, they may be poor but that doesn't mean they're stupid, they'll never fall for that as well. Have one of the blue collar plebs riding in a hard hat, that'll get the message across."


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> Meh. What's your answer to the question about what the difference is from a motorist's perspective?


No difference. As I said, drivers shouldn't drive into things. 

Also cyclists shouldn't ride without lights. And if their dog ate it, then don't ride. If for whatever reason I can't drive, I don't. If I can't cycle I dont.


----------



## winjim (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Only idiots don't ride with lights at night.
> 
> Car drivers should make sure they don't drive into anything by looking where they are going and not smash into anything lit or otherwise.
> 
> It's entirely possible, even desirable, for both these to be true.


@Moderators can we please delete every post on the thread except this one.

Oh, and maybe my one about the tree, that one was quite funny.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> No difference. As I said, *drivers shouldn't drive into things.
> 
> Also cyclists shouldn't ride without lights*. And if their dog ate it, then don't ride. If for whatever reason I can't drive, I don't. If I can't cycle I dont.



What's the purpose of drawing an equivalence between these two completely different things, except empty moralizing? Why are you unable to address the absolute responsibility of one road user not to kill or maim another, without dishing out useless advice to others?


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> What's the purpose of drawing an equivalence between these two completely different things, except empty moralizing? Why are you unable to address the absolute responsibility of one road user not to kill or maim another, without dishing out useless advice to others?


You are making the assumption the only issue with not having lights is cars not seeing them. It does not account for other road user (cyclists, pedestrains) particularly the elderly who cannot see as well.

You are fast moving, you are traffic, you need to-be-seen lights for yours and everyone else's safety.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> *You are making the assumption the only issue with not having lights is cars not seeing them*. It does not account for other road user (cyclists, pedestrains) particularly the elderly who cannot see as well.
> 
> You are fast moving, you are traffic, you need to-be-seen lights for yours and everyone else's safety.



Actually, I'm not - it's you're assumption, because you've bought into the terms set by the OP. I always use a front light in darkness, and yet I don't believe it protects me from poor driver-observation, so obviously I'm using it for other purposes. However, it is for the benefit of pedestrians as well as cyclists that lighting levels need to be brought down, not up. They are the biggest losers in the lighting arms race.


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> Actually, I'm not - it's you're assumption, because you've bought into the terms set by the OP. I always use a front light in darkness, and yet I don't believe it protects me from poor driver-observation, so obviously I'm using it for other purposes. However, it is for the benefit of pedestrians as well as cyclists that lighting levels need to be brought down, not up. They are the biggest losers in the lighting arms race.


So a cyclist endangering other road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) particularly the young and the elderly by having no lights are......?


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So a cyclist endangering other road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) particularly the young and the elderly by having no lights are......?


Having no lights does not _in itself_ endanger anyone - we're back to the requirement of being able (and prepared) to stop comfortably in the distance one can see to be clear. It's not rocket science to figure out that having lights increases that distance at a given speed, and signals your presence overtly to other road users so that they can adjust their behaviour to accomodate you. That should also tell you that lights are a licence to go faster, and to expect that people will get or keep out of your way - that's an advantage to you, not a courtesy to them. Where precisely the boundary between the two lies is perpetually negotiable, but I'd argue that cyclists are currently too assertive in their relationship with pedestrians, and not assertive enough in their relationship with cars. There's no excuse for cyclists endangering pedestrians and other cyclists - this point actually has very little to do with lighting.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Except a zillion pages ago you told me my white van was useless!!! Make your mind up, is it any wonder we get confused at your ramblings?



No, I never did. I told you it was hard to see against plenty of things which are common in winter, specifically:



mjray said:


> You really think that white stands out against the light grey winter sky, the white fog, white frost and (once it finally gets this far south) white snow?



...which again comes down to no one colour being universally useful. I think that's pretty obvious and common sense to almost everyone else. Most people who deny it are apologists for bad motoring, aren't they? Please, take a long hard look at who you're supporting, such as Mr 30-in-60-causes-carnage.

And is your bike legally lit yet? 

[QUOTE 4045584, member: 9609"]there seems to be only Justin and Myself who are saying it is a bad idea to ride in the gloaming in dark clothes without lights. I don't believe either of us are advocating mimicking pulsing space lemons, but are merely suggesting some sort bright clothing and lighting is possibly a very wise tactic to adopt when sharing the road with the many uncaring muppets in failing day light.[/QUOTE]

Do you also advocate that people should dress conservatively when out partying so as to avoid violent offences against them? 

I looked up "gloaming". It turns out it means "the time of day immediately following sunset". 8am was not after sunset in Suffolk!

But bottom line, the main point of difference isn't the lights, it's that "some sort bright clothing" makes significant difference if you are on a correctly-lit-and-reflectored bicycle.



0-markymark-0 said:


> Only idiots don't ride with lights at night.



Agreed, but:



0-markymark-0 said:


> Also cyclists shouldn't ride without lights.



Rubbish. I'm just back from a very nice 20 miles riding without lights.



0-markymark-0 said:


> So a cyclist endangering other road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) particularly the young and the elderly by having no lights are......?



And @0-markymark-0 is the last person I expected to imply that pedestrians should be giving way to cyclists! Has someone stolen him?


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

Sorry, that should read for cycling at night.


----------



## benb (8 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> 8am was not after sunset in Suffolk



Yes it was.
It was after sunset the previous day.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> Yes it was.
> It was after sunset the previous day.


And today's pedant points go to...

Either way, gloaming refers to evening twilight, according to two dictionaries. 8am was after sunrise (but before sunset) so not twilight or evening. It might have been dull, but we've no pictures, so where do we draw the line? Legislators have drawn the line at sunrise and the subject of the OP was obeying the law.


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

Oh and what's not being smashed into by an unlit cyclit when crossing the road got to do with giving wsy to them?


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> You are making the assumption the only issue with not having lights is cars not seeing them. It does not account for other road user (cyclists, pedestrains) particularly the elderly who cannot see as well.
> 
> You are fast moving, you are traffic, you need to-be-seen lights for yours and everyone else's safety.


The onus is on me as a cyclist to be able to stop within the distance I can see to be clear, not on elderly pedestrians to get out of my way. To-be-seen lights are just a way of shifting the responsibility from me onto them


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh and what's not being smashed into by an unlit cyclit when crossing the road got to do with giving wsy to them?


What difference does it make whether the cyclist is lit or not? The cyclist should avoid the pedestrian by riding so they can stop within what they can see to be clear, lit or not - if they're not using a good headlight, that's probably going to be pretty slow outside of bright street lighting.

I thought that usually many people are far more extreme about pedestrian priority than me (for example, I think a bell and passing above walking speed is OK if there's more than five feet clearance and nothing to suggest they're unstable) but maybe I'm confused and @0-markymark-0 isn't one of them.


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh and what's not being smashed into by an unlit cyclit when crossing the road got to do with giving wsy to them?


What would you have done differently if they'd had lights?


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

Dan B said:


> What would you have done differently if they'd had lights?


Not crossed in front of them as they couldn't be seen?


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Not crossed in front of them as they couldn't be seen?


You've answered your own question then: there is a direct link between whether they have lights and whether you give way to them


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

Dan B said:


> You've answered your own question then: there is a direct link between whether they have lights and whether you give way to them


But a oedestrian does not have a right to walk in front of traffic to make them stop. When on the road they have priority and everyone shoukd stop. But I can't just walk across the road in front of traffic.


----------



## totallyfixed (8 Dec 2015)

I took this picture the other night when we were commuting home, we travel almost exclusively on lanes that have no street lighting except the villages we pass through. Some of the roads are so narrow there is only just room for a car and a bike to pass each other. We do not use high viz, on the contrary most of our clothing is black. Our lights are good, they need to be, they have settings that enable dip and main beam. When a chelsea tractor is coming towards you on main beam it is useful to have the capacity to make them dip.
The quality isn't great as it was taken on a phone, oh and btw the yellow pannier on dr_pink's bike is not high viz. One of her rear lights has actually been turned off because it is too bright to ride in company, of the 2 you can see one is a mudguard reflector. Note that our front lights illuminate the road and verge and not low flying aircraft.






If there was more respect for each other non of these discussions would be necessary, as things stand there plainly is not, the next step is to educate the hard way, currently the penalties for hitting a cyclist are derisory, the same goes for using a mobile phone while driving. When these are addressed the road becomes a safer place, until then motorists will continue to drive too quickly with impunity.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> But a oedestrian does not have a right to walk in front of traffic to make them stop.


Not to make them stop, but how can a cyclist tell why a pedestrian is walking out? Slow down. Don't like that? My response is tough, it's their space that you've been allowed on and should do so with their rules.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> *But a oedestrian does not have a right to walk in front of traffic to make them stop*. When on the road they have priority and everyone shoukd stop. But I can't just walk across the road in front of traffic.



I do it a lot. You have to pick your battles and be prepared to move quickly if it doesn't work, but I practice it as an antidote to the prevailing power relationship. Holding your hand up like a traffic cop helps.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

This killer driver had seven seconds to notice the hi vis:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20151207-curfew-seven-second-cyclists-death-careless-driving-case

He's not spending a single day in prison.

This driver had fourteen seconds to notice the cyclist but he was chatting on the phone:

https://rosslydall.wordpress.com/20...-nearly-killed-by-skip-lorry-forgives-driver/

The rider lost her leg, the driver was fined less than the cost of her bike.

Neither driver went to prison, neither driver answered to a charge more serious than driving carelessly, not dangerously.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

So it's dangerous not to wear hi vis, but when a driver fails to even notice the hi vis it's just careless, not dangerous.


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> I do it a lot. You have to pick your battles and be prepared to move quickly if it doesn't work, but I practice it as an antidote to the prevailing power relationship. Holding your hand up like a traffic cop helps.


Just need to be extra sure you're not walking in front of an idiot without lights you couldn't see.


----------



## subaqua (8 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> All sounds to me like a lot of excuses to do something stupid and illegal.


or gets hooked on a segregated section and gets the lights on the bike broken by the nobwit driver. ( wire came loose but couldn't see in the dark to fix it !) luckily on my red night vision evo jacket ( not hi viz but has retro reflective shapes on it ) I have a back up red LED light built in


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> luckily on my red night vision evo jacket ( not hi viz but has retro reflective shapes on it ) I have a back up red LED light built in


I usually carry a pair of minimal tiny lithium battery (long shelf life) emergency lights in my bag with bottle tops taped over the on-off switches to avoid random switch-ons. Failing that, I've an app called "Mr White" on my phone which can be set to red or white as a last resort. It's a long walk home...


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> 3. You are prone to describing people who don't follow your preferred behaviour as fools, or worse. Makes complaining of being called 'a bit of a nobber' a tad hypocritical.
> 4. You appear to believe in collective responsibility for cyclists, which is offensive nonsense on stilts. if you doubt this, do tell me what you plan to do about the braindead feckwit in a white van (you know, just like you) who passed me within touching distance yesterday morning?


Nice, that's a hat trick of abusive comments! 
Sorry, I personally can't do anything about the motorist you describe, I'm not really sure what you want me to say or do? Write to your MP, ask for better policing, better training, more severe punishments? 
Doesn't stop any cyclist/pedestrian/road user being more pro active about making themselves seen.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> or gets hooked on a segregated section and gets the lights on the bike broken by the nobwit driver. ( wire came loose but couldn't see in the dark to fix it !) luckily on my red night vision evo jacket ( not hi viz but has retro reflective shapes on it ) I have a back up red LED light built in


Purely as devil's advocate, shouldn't you still be walking as the Evo light isn't attached to the bike?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> I almost started writing something serious on the subject (nocturnal cyclist conspicuity, I mean, not Ulysses), about which I have been having additional thoughts during a period of wintry introspection, which have led to my becoming determinedly even less razzly-dazzly. I have stretched out the life of batteries for my Fenix torch beyond all previous limits. However I haven't really got time, and such efforts are largely wasted on Mr Slow anyway. It seems a more appropriate response to his intractability and pig-headedness to recycle some old writing on the subject, so here are some words I wrote for our local campaign rag yonks ago...
> 
> 
> *Attack of the Space Lemons*
> ...


The OP didn't even mention hi viz, it's been dragged into this thread probably inevitably. 
But I get it now, you just hate motorists, any motorists with a passion, it all makes sense now.


----------



## subaqua (8 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Purely as devil's advocate, shouldn't you still be walking as the Evo light isn't attached to the bike?



technically- yes. although it is better than some rear lights i have seen this week !

currently debating putting the new bits for my bike ( including new B&M dynamo light ) on before Christmas or waiting and do it when i am on Christmas break . (17th Dec onwards)


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The OP didn't even mention hi viz, it's been dragged into this thread probably inevitably.





Justinslow said:


> Guy on a bike just now, all black gear,........bellend.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> I took this picture the other night when we were commuting home, we travel almost exclusively on lanes that have no street lighting except the villages we pass through. Some of the roads are so narrow there is only just room for a car and a bike to pass each other. We do not use high viz, on the contrary most of our clothing is black. Our lights are good, they need to be, they have settings that enable dip and main beam. When a chelsea tractor is coming towards you on main beam it is useful to have the capacity to make them dip.
> The quality isn't great as it was taken on a phone, oh and btw the yellow pannier on dr_pink's bike is not high viz. One of her rear lights has actually been turned off because it is too bright to ride in company, of the 2 you can see one is a mudguard reflector. Note that our front lights illuminate the road and verge and not low flying aircraft.
> 
> 
> ...


I hope you weren't operating a camera with your hands and riding at the same time..............


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Yep @glenn forger where does it mention anything about him requiring hi viz?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

You were the first person to mention the cyclist's clothing. It's in the OP. You called a cyclist a bellend for wearing black clothes then you claimed the OP wasn't about hi vis. You're not a very intelligent person.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> I do it a lot. You have to pick your battles and be prepared to move quickly if it doesn't work, but I practice it as an antidote to the prevailing power relationship. Holding your hand up like a traffic cop helps.


Lol funniest thing I've read in a while! Says a lot.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You were the first person to mention the cyclist's clothing. It's in the OP. You called a cyclist a bellend for wearing black clothes then you claimed the OP wasn't about hi vis. You're not a very intelligent person.


That's four!
"Hi vis" as in the " space lemon" variety wasn't mentioned or required. Just some sensible brighter more colourful attire or lights switched on. Come on Glenn get with the program.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]
the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.



[/QUOTE]

Then you shouldn't have any problem finding a post that says no lights are a good idea.


----------



## subaqua (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]



I have always loathed the whole concept of DRLs, they have added nothing to the safety of cyclists. But recently I have come to the conclusion they are even more dangerous than I ever imagined - I am seeing so many people these dark evenings with just the DRL on. the intensity of them on a dark evening is dangerously blinding.[/QUOTE]

DRL should turn off when headlights ( dipped or main beam) are on . I know when i leave the V40 lights set to auto they do. they are also low down so not pointing in yer face


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You are miscounting. You have forgotten the word bellend in the OP


Yes but seeing as I wrote it, it's not directed at me, because I along with every other road user that morning had lights/side lights on so that they could be seen more easily. But we've been here already.

Like I said I dont know why I didn't see it before - being a cycling forum, the hatred towards motorists, it's plain to see, it over rides people's common sense, take @theclaud - walking out in front of traffic with his hand held high "like a police officer" just to make a point, it's absurd behaviour akin to Russian roulette, one day someone through just bad luck or not looking (maybe as he may be wearing dark dull clothes) may not stop.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4046359, member: 9609"]I was meaning folk not even putting their lights on and just driving about with DRLs. In poor light they can be very blinding[/QUOTE]
Seen that a few times round here, so that the rear of the car is not illuminated at all in semi/dark conditions.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

Cite the post or shut your cakehole.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Dan B said:


> The onus is on me as a cyclist to be able to stop within the distance I can see to be clear, not on elderly pedestrians to get out of my way. To-be-seen lights are just a way of shifting the responsibility from me onto them




But surly melt it is up to these pedestrians to be well lit and wearing hiviz?

After all that is the argument for this thread

Unlit pedestrians are idiots?


----------



## mickle (8 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> I dispute that. But more importantly, everyone knows that it's not uncommon for cyclists to be unlit or poorly lit, _for whatever reason_. Motorists demonstrate that they know this by banging on about it at every opportunity. So everyone admits that they know they are reasonably likely, in the course of any journey, to encounter a road user who is vulnerable and relatively inconspicuous, but motorists refuse to accommodate this reality because it obliges them to take responsibility for the danger they present. What's the difference, from the point of view of the care required from motorists, whether someone is an 'idiot', or is a child/someone whose battery ran out/someone who was unexpectedly late home/someone who swapped bikes and forgot to swap lights/someone whose rear light bounced off and broke when they hit a pothole/etc?



This is the post that this thread has been waiting for.


----------



## benb (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.[/QUOTE]

So in the absence of a link to a post saying cycling in the dark without lights is OK, as you claimed, I'll take that as a no then.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Oh right, I forgot that you are a special case and that hurtful comments affect you more than everyone else.


I am quite sensitive........


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]
the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Dec 2015)

Ninjism more like.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> But I get it now, you just hate motorists, any motorists with a passion, it all makes sense now.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> So in the absence of a link to a post saying cycling in the dark without lights is OK, as you claimed, I'll take that as a no then.


This was never a question, as it wasn't dark, it was a really very dull start to the day, just after sunrise (although the sun was obscured by clouds) many posters have said that lights or bright colourful clothes were not necessary, some of us on here disagree with that, this is the crux of the issue.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You've been to Bicester Outlet Village again?


Xmas shopping for my favourite trolls, innit?


----------



## mickle (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> You are miscounting. You have forgotten the word bellend in the OP



Also 'idiots' in thread title.


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> This is the post that this thread has been waiting for.


----------



## oldstrath (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Nice, that's a hat trick of abusive comments!
> Sorry, I personally can't do anything about the motorist you describe, I'm not really sure what you want me to say or do? Write to your MP, ask for better policing, better training, more severe punishments?
> Doesn't stop any cyclist/pedestrian/road user being more pro active about making themselves seen.



I know fine you can do nothing about it. Which is the exact same as I can do about some guy on a bike in Suffolk. You clearly recognise there is no such thing as collective responsibility for white van men, that I cannot judge your driving by some clown at the other end if the country. So please, stop going on about collective responsibility fot cyclists.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I hope you weren't operating a camera with your hands and riding at the same time..............


That's another thing that is still legal, isn't it? It may be foolish, but seeing as it rarely causes harm that isn't covered better by another offence (such as wanton cycling), why add red tape?

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.[/QUOTE]
And yet, not a single bit is quotable?

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]But in their defence they do shout cyclist when seen at a distance, and they are easy to spot at distance through hedges etc, and just like flashing lights as a driver I find them to be a great warning that there is a cyclist ahead.[/QUOTE]
That's an argument I find baffling. Why the heck do you want to warn other road users that you're only a cyclist? The justice system hates us, so they can do almost anything and get away with it. Take a cyclist's leg off and get fined £750, for example: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=42853

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]Particularly the flashing lights, just as it is obvious you are approaching a lorry when you see the cab top lights,[/QUOTE]
Is it only me that sometimes mistakes them for a bus at first glance?



subaqua said:


> DRL should turn off when headlights ( dipped or main beam) are on . I know when i leave the V40 lights set to auto they do. they are also low down so not pointing in yer face


Yes, but many motorists don't turn the headlights on because their dash is lit and they can see the DRLs being reflected back at them, so their tail lights aren't lit.



Justinslow said:


> Like I said I dont know why I didn't see it before - being a cycling forum, the hatred towards motorists, it's plain to see, it over rides people's common sense


I'm a motorist too (and I suspect many of us are) and think this forum is better than some at keeping it specific at hating nobber motorists rather than all motorists. My heart sings when I'm driving along a dark country road and notice someone out for a walk. Just out for a walk in the dark, enjoying the stars and lights on the horizon, the wilderness and wildlife, not dressed like a space lemon or flashing a torch around. I feel it's great that we can still enjoy that freedom, that connection with the nature of our winter nights, and the pressure to street-light and hi-vis everything should be resisted for as long as possible. Unlit people don't cause me any problem simply by being unlit because even on dipped lights, I can see them clearly from far enough away to give them plenty of room - the headlight regulations allow a horizontal cutoff and if yours is below-horizontal, it's worth getting it adjusted by someone who can keep it the right side of an MOT test pass.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

One thing that is interesting from " across the pond"

The original post is about a cyclist in gloomy conditions not darkness

One could argue the point that in these conditions it is not a legal requirement and it is common to see both vehicles and cyclists unlit

However the developing conversation on some US sites is identical 

It cites the responsibility of cyclist to be seen and gave lights 

However the difference is they are discussing DRLs

Daylight Running Lights

Yep..... All the same arguments that you should be using lights bright enough to be seen in bt bright sunlight every time you cycle even if you have to carry multiple battery packs to allow you to do so

And is not just in the US, in the UK Lezyne have a setting on their rear lights that they "as being for daytime use Anderson not be used at night

How long before the high viz police and motoring lobby decide that daytime running lights are are essential for cyclists


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Also 'idiots' in thread title.


That wasn't me, the "mods" didn't like the words "bell" and "end" in the title so substituted "idiots", fair play.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> This was never a question, as it wasn't dark, it was a really very dull start to the day, just after sunrise (although the sun was obscured by clouds) many posters have said that lights or bright colourful clothes were not necessary, some of us on here disagree with that, this is the crux of the issue.




... and the whole point

It is an entirely arbitrary and individual assessment


You decided it was dull enough for the cyclist t wear hiviz and have lights

Why is the judgement of the cyclist that they were not any less valid?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Do you think there is any possibility that at any time you could see your way clear to consider the notion that, if everyone else had turned their lights off, you might never have noticed anything other than a cyclist riding their bike in a perfectly reasonable and lawful fashion?


Yes absolutely, but nobody does that in dull/dark daylight conditions, pretty much everybody turns their lights on to make themselves more visible, I go back to another scenario - in heavy rain in day light, do you have your lights on to see where you are going or to be seen or are you the one who never has their lights on?


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> And is not just in the US, in the UK Lezyne have a setting on their rear lights that they "as being for daytime use Anderson not be used at night


Not just UK. Some German-spec dynamo lights have a daytime running light mode that is too bright to be legal at night (so they have daylight sensors which turns it down at night).



Cunobelin said:


> How long before the high viz police and motoring lobby decide that daytime running lights are are essential for cyclists


As soon as they think it won't fail the laugh test.

[QUOTE 4046508, member: 9609"]and a none cyclist who skipped through it.
because I am moving relatively slowly, and as a driver I find that info very useful[/QUOTE]
Yes, but sadly, cyclist-motorists might react well to the information, but most of us also cope fine if we see a cyclist later and the Ronnie Pickerings of this world might take it as a signal that they can disregard the cyclist. Much better to make them think you might be a motorbike or e-bike that'll leave a bigger dent: single bright steady lights front and back, and no clothing that can be identified as "cyclist" quickly.

(Thanks for pointing out the leg wasn't just broken - edited to correct. I still can't quite believe the fine.)


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> One thing that is interesting from " across the pond"
> 
> The original post is about a cyclist in gloomy conditions not darkness
> 
> ...


Interesting stuff, I wouldn't want that just as I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, the states do this for motorcycles already don't they, as well as other countries.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> ... and the whole point
> 
> It is an entirely arbitrary and individual assessment
> 
> ...


No, not hi viz in the sense of day glo reflective lemon.
Because everyone else had lights on and it was obviously very dull.
At the end of the day you are correct, it is not "law" he did nothing which was illegal, it is only a matter of opinion, that doesn't mean he was correct in his decision to not use lights or brighter colourful clothing, which would be the sensible choice in most people's book.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Interesting stuff, I wouldn't want that just as I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, the states do this for motorcycles already don't they, as well as other countries.


But according to the advocates it is common sense, only idiots would not use and it should be the gold standard

The exact same standards and evidence that you are using to claim that the cyclist in the OP is in the wrong

Why are we allowed to choose on DRLs but not hiviz?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No, not hi viz in the sense of day glo reflective lemon.
> Because everyone else had lights on and it was obviously very dull.
> At the end of the day you are correct, it is not "law" he did nothing which was illegal, it is only a matter of opinion, that doesn't mean he was correct in his decision to not use lights or brighter colourful clothing, which would be the sensible choice in most people's book.


The "Fox News" argument then?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> I'm just amazed by the number of motorists driving without lights or with faulty lights. They far outnumber the number of cyclists I see without lights.
> 
> How any motorists can drive without lights I don't know. The wouldn't be able I see their instruments.... but then again, they probably think they don't need them.


Had this with the local press

Headline on front page with full picture of unlit cyclist and hysterical headlines / editorial

Shame that of the four cars in the picture, two were also unlit, one had a single headlight and one was correctly illuminated

They were not happy when challenged, but due credit, they did publish the comments


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

User said:


> I'm just amazed by the number of motorists driving without lights or with faulty lights. They far outnumber the number of cyclists I see without lights.
> 
> How any motorists can drive without lights I don't know. The wouldn't be able I see their instruments.... but then again, they probably think they don't need them.


Hi ya Reg, how ya doin, "nobber" here!
Yeah you get clueless motorists just like you get clueless cyclists......


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Yeah you get clueless motorists just like you get clueless cyclists......



Correct 

But why do we accept cars in dark colours an no hiviz as normal

After all I would have s better chance of seeing a car in s bright colour and hiviz markings


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Correct
> 
> But why do we accept cars in dark colours an no hiviz as normal
> 
> After all I would have s better chance of seeing a car in s bright colour and hiviz markings


I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?


OK 

A couple of my bikes / trikes are bigger than some cars

Do I ignore hiviz and lights like a car, or use them like a bike?


(Of course this also brings us back to the big bright emergency vehicles that motorists still hit


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?


So why do they need to have lights on when it sufficiently light enough that they don't need them to see by?


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> OK
> 
> A couple of my bikes / trikes are bigger than some cars
> 
> ...


Forget hi viz, cars and other vehicles put on their lights when conditions dictate (if they have sensible drivers or auto sensor lights). Whatever you take on the road should be lit if conditions require it, IMO.


----------



## Justinslow (8 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> So why do they need to have lights on when it sufficiently light enough that they don't need them to see by?


See "foggy" conditions or heavy rain, it would be great fun wouldn't it on the motorways if nobody used their lights in these conditions?


----------



## theclaud (8 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Forget hi viz



I'd love to, but the farking stuff is everywhere, offending mine eyes (© @GrumpyGregry).


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> See "foggy" conditions or heavy rain, it would be great fun wouldn't it on the motorways if nobody used their lights in these conditions?



Missing again the point that despite all your faith in the visibility of cars the worst accidents happen in these conditions because once again the motorists are speeding an driving inappropriately

The lights are a red herring


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Forget hi viz, cars and other vehicles put on their lights when conditions dictate (if they have sensible drivers or auto sensor lights). Whatever you take on the road should be lit if conditions require it, IMO.



Which brings us back to the mahoosive horses on Hungerford Common

Should they have lights on in foggy conditions?


----------



## Mugshot (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> See "foggy" conditions or heavy rain, it would be great fun wouldn't it on the motorways if nobody used their lights in these conditions?


According to the OP the cyclist wasn't on a motorway or riding in heavy rain or fog, he was riding in daylight.



Justinslow said:


> Guy on a bike just now, all black gear, no lighting whatsoever, every other road user has lights of some discription on (as they are needed)........bellend.


You had seen the cyclist and managed not to knock him over also, at least up to that point, every other road user had too. Yet every other road user was using lights, it doesn't appear that they were using them to help themselves see where they were going so it must have been in an effort to make themselves more visible to others. But why is that? If we can see the cyclist and the cars are more visible because;


Justinslow said:


> I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?


why do they feel the need to have lights on when they do not appear to be necessary for the conditions. I don't think it's as a courtesy to other road users I think it's because too many people can't be trusted to drive in a safe and attentive manner and surely that is what needs addressing.

Like you I also have a van, it's a long wheel base high top Transit, it's a pretty big vehicle much bigger than a car and far far bigger than a bicycle. It should be super visible, yet the amount of people that pull out on me is staggering. It's big and it's heavy and in a collision with a car there's only likely to be one winner but that doesn't seem to stop them.

Here's a picture of my old van







And here's a picture of the 4x4 hat smashed into the back of me






I had stopped at a temporary traffic control as the council were cutting the grass. There were warning signs out, council vehicles with flashing lights, me in a resonable sized van, perfect visibility and the driver had about half a mile of clear road to see me. It is fortunate in some respects that it was me he hit, the fact is that he would have hit whatever was in front of him and had it been most other vehicles the outcome could have been very very different.
The officer that attended told me that the driver would likely be sent on a driver awareness course. I had to fight this for months I had arguments with the officer and arguments with his sergeant about what they were proposing to do. Eventually, following my letters to the senior decision maker in police hq the guy got taken to court. He was found guilty of driving without due care, got 6 points on his licence and various fines. The photos of the vehicles were mine because the attending officer didn't take any, it was me that went back the next day and measured the skid marks because the attending officer hadn't and it was me that measured out and took photographs showing the amount of clear road the driver of the 4x4 would have had before he hit me because again the attending officer couldn't be bothered.

It should not be necessary for cars to run lights in the daytime, it should not be necessary for chickens and trees to have hi-viz, it should not be necessary for cyclists to have their lights on in all conditions, and if they have they should be wearing bright colours too and if they are they should have hi-viz and they should have reflectives and they should have a helmet and more than likely they should be on the cycle path, and the one that makes me weep, in no circumstances should it ever be necessary so see little trains of yellow children trotting along the pavement to the pool or the Christmas concert or wherever.
The issue generally is not the visibility of an item it is the inattentiveness of drivers and the lack of desire to sufficiently punish those that transgress. It is this which needs to be addressed.


----------



## benb (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> This was never a question, as it wasn't dark, it was a really very dull start to the day, just after sunrise (although the sun was obscured by clouds) many posters have said that lights or bright colourful clothes were not necessary, some of us on here disagree with that, this is the crux of the issue.



My reply was to @User9609 who claimed that people had said it was fine to cycle at night without lights.
Unsurprisingly, he failed to back that up.


----------



## benb (9 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4047211, member: 9609"]

@benb I have explained that a number of times now, it is the underlying theme of the thread.[/QUOTE]

No, there has not been the slightest suggestion that lights at night are unnecessary, which is what you claimed.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4047211, member: 9609"]@Mugshot used to drive an enormous lorry and some folk struggle to see those too, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with making an effort to get yourself seen when out on a bike - it is really useful for people who are trying to drive properly, and you are still more likely to be observed by those that are not.[/QUOTE]
Having used up a fair chunk of the internet with my last post I'm not sure what else I can say, let's try a more concise version.

If people look, they will see.


----------



## Dan B (9 Dec 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> But a oedestrian does not have a right to walk in front of traffic to make them stop. When on the road they have priority and everyone shoukd stop. But I can't just walk across the road in front of traffic.


While it's debatable whether that is the case or should be the case (and I can think of some streets where it is common practice and others where it should be), from the cyclist's point of view my moral responsibility is to not run into them, not just to provide appropriate lighting for the collision when I do. As the party with more momentum I should bear the greater share of responsibilty

(Confession: I almost hit a pedestrian the other day while skating at night in a bus lane because I had turned round to look at an unlit car in the adjacent lane. A lesson was learnt)


----------



## subaqua (9 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Having used up a fair chunk of the internet with my last post I'm not sure what else I can say, let's try a more concise version.
> 
> If people look, they will see.


not entirely true 

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


----------



## Mugshot (9 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> not entirely true
> 
> http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


Damn you and your evidence based links!
How about;

If people look _properly_, they will see?


----------



## Justinslow (9 Dec 2015)

Mugshot said:


> According to the OP the cyclist wasn't on a motorway or riding in heavy rain or fog, he was riding in daylight.
> 
> 
> You had seen the cyclist and managed not to knock him over also, at least up to that point, every other road user had too. Yet every other road user was using lights, it doesn't appear that they were using them to help themselves see where they were going so it must have been in an effort to make themselves more visible to others. But why is that? If we can see the cyclist and the cars are more visible because;
> ...


Untill you remove the squidgy organic bit from behind the steering wheel/controls I don't see how you stop people from making mistakes, which your post basically boils down to. History has shown us that humans are not idiot proof, untill the day they are it would be wise to make yourself as visible as possible in poor light conditions especially if you are operating a small thin slow machine. This takes nothing away from the responsibility of the driver, as has been shown -even dumb inattentive cyclists rear end vehicles occasionally.


----------



## Scoosh (9 Dec 2015)

This could be a good point to close this thread ...


----------



## Justinslow (9 Dec 2015)

subaqua said:


> not entirely true
> 
> http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


That is a good article, so having scanned it briefly it seems to back up what I and others are trying to say.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Dec 2015)

Scoosh said:


> This could be a good point to close this thread ...



You are about 6 days too late.


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> That is a good article, so having scanned it briefly it seems to back up what I and others are trying to say.



If you peruse it you'll find that it also differentiates between 'looking' and 'looking properly'... which supports the other side of this discussion.


----------



## Justinslow (9 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> If you peruse it you'll find that it also differentiates between 'looking' and 'looking properly'... which supports the other side of this discussion.


The advice for cyclists bit though?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Dec 2015)

Scoosh said:


> This could be a good point to close this thread ...



I've been searching around for studies into hi-vis clothing and conspicuity of vulnerable road users and there are have been a number of studies done that are worth reading. However, since this thread is over 40 pages long and that information may be somewhat buried away from view would it be possible for me to create a new thread that solely looks at these studies and their various findings? It might even be good to have as a sticky in the Advocacy and Cycling Safety forum.

It is a very complex topic with some lengthy reading to be done but I think it will be worthwhile. I'll post all the links once I've pulled them all together.
(So far the conclusion is that high conspicuity alone does not guarantee detection by another driver, and the colours that may be effective differ by time of day and surrounding environment with some combinations even acting to camouflage).

GC


----------



## Justinslow (9 Dec 2015)

This bit
*Cyclists and motorcyclists:*


Recognise the risk of being in a saccade. High contrast clothing and lights help. In particular, flashing LED’s (front and rear) are especially effective for cyclists as they create contrast and the on-off flashing attracts the peripheral vision in the same manner that movement does. There’s nothing wrong with leaving these on during the day. (Especially if they are rechargeable)
The relatively slower speed of bicycles means that they will be closer to a point of collision if a vehicle begins to pull into their path. Turn this to advantage – when passing junctions, look at the head of the driver that is approaching or has stopped. The head of the driver will naturally stop and centre upon you if you have been seen. If the driver’s head sweeps through you without pausing, then the chances are that you are in a saccade – you must assume that you have not been seen and expect the driver to pull out!
Recognise that with a low sun, a dirty windscreen or one with rain beating against it drivers are likely to have less of a chance of seeing you. 
Take a cycle training course – this will teach you where you need to be positioned on the road, how to use your eyesight to make sure drivers pay you attention and other useful techniques that can minimise dangers. See: How to make your next bike ride safer than the last.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Dec 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It is a very complex topic with some lengthy reading to be done






glasgowcyclist said:


> So far the conclusion is that high conspicuity alone does not guarantee detection by another driver, and the colours that may be effective differ by time of day and surrounding environment with some combinations even acting to camouflage



Can't we just stick with your synopsis? I trust you


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The advice for cyclists bit though?


ah, so you're cherry picking the bit that supports your POV? There's advice for drivers too... you may have missed it as you quickly skim read the article.


----------



## Justinslow (9 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> ah, so you're cherry picking the bit that supports your POV? There's advice for drivers too... you may have missed it as you quickly skim read the article.


No didn't miss it, all good stuff, but as this is a cycling forum thought the bit concerning CYCLISTS might be appropriate.


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> No didn't miss it, all good stuff, but as this is a cycling forum thought the bit concerning CYCLISTS might be appropriate.


i think the whole article is appropriate... each to their own i guess.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Dec 2015)

theclaud said:


> I'd love to, but the farking stuff is everywhere, offending mine eyes (© @GrumpyGregry).


Come to Copenhagen, like Swansea but without the hills, you can live in Amager Strand and look across the water to Sweden* not Swansea as you cycle to a city centre theatre and the three people you see on bikes in hi-viz, which indeed doth offend mine eye, will be British ex-pats and will make up 0.0001% of the cycling population.

*Local joke: What's the worst thing about living in cph? On a clear day you can see Malmo.


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2015)

This morning I saw a child's wheelchair with DRLs.



It looked totally badass.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 Dec 2015)

winjim said:


> This morning I saw a child's wheelchair with DRLs.
> 
> 
> 
> It looked totally badass.



Was that before or after you drove straight over it?


----------



## bancrobba (9 Dec 2015)

sorted.


----------



## winjim (9 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Was that before or after you drove straight over it?


Heh 

It's a weird quandary actually. I think DRLs in general are a stupid idea. I think making kids' disability aids cool so they don't mind having to use them is a good idea. So making wheelchairs cool by use of DRLs? I don't know how to feel about it


----------



## Dan B (9 Dec 2015)

winjim said:


> Heh
> 
> It's a weird quandary actually. I think DRLs in general are a stupid idea. I think making kids' disability aids cool so they don't mind having to use them is a good idea. So making wheelchairs cool by use of DRLs? I don't know how to feel about it


I think on balance it's better than having them wheeling around with their front fog lights on in all weathers


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Dec 2015)

The real answer is a short skirt!


A friend of mine used to cycle regularly and one Summer went to a Party wearing a short summer dress

She was amazed at how cars slowed down behind her and overtook slowly at a greater clearance

Anecdotally it appears that a finely turned ankle is more effective than hiviz or lights


----------



## Tin Pot (9 Dec 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The real answer is a short skirt!
> 
> 
> A friend of mine used to cycle regularly and one Summer went to a Party wearing a short summer dress
> ...



I'll admit sometimes I don't pedal quite so hard.

Remember the hello boys billboards that increased accidents?


----------



## Dan B (10 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Remember the hello boys billboards that increased accidents?


I remember the billboards, but I don't remember them driving around crashing into people?


----------



## martint235 (10 Dec 2015)

Dan B said:


> I remember the billboards, but I don't remember them driving around crashing into people?


You obviously weren't paying the required level of attention then.....


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Dec 2015)

Well i didn't see that coming! Who'd have thought this thread could plummet so far from its abysmal beginnings?


----------



## Justinslow (10 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> Well i didn't see that coming! Who'd have thought this thread could plummet so far from its abysmal beginnings?


It's clearly hard for people to believe that there are "idiot cyclists" out there, but I can assure you there are.
Well we got there in the end though with that excellent article from @subaqua.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Dec 2015)

woosh!


----------



## Justinslow (10 Dec 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> woosh!


The author even recommends drivers drive with their lights on in day time, something contributors on here have roundly ridiculed, but I guess he's just a guy with an opinion, just like all of us


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The author even recommends drivers drive with their lights on in day time, something contributors on here have roundly ridiculed, but I guess he's just a guy with an opinion, just like all of us


MEGA WOOSH!


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Dec 2015)

you couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



## Scoosh (10 Dec 2015)

Not ready enough - it's only been 25 mins since the last post, so there must be a (sad ) modicum of people who still think there is something else to say on this matter ...


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2015)

Scoosh said:


> Not ready enough - it's only been 25 mins since the last post, so there must be a (sad ) modicum of people who still think there is something else to say on this matter ...


Well, if you will keep posting! 

@Justinslow and friends will doubtless be particularly pleased that the cyclist at 4mins into this test video was safely wearing hi-vis 

View: https://youtu.be/VbsREAllzWA?t=4m


----------



## Justinslow (10 Dec 2015)

Scoosh said:


> Not ready enough - it's only been 25 mins since the last post, so there must be a (sad ) modicum of people who still think there is something else to say on this matter ...



I've nothing else to add, just responding to 


MontyVeda said:


> Who'd have thought this thread could plummet so far from its abysmal beginnings?


I'm surprised such an "abysmal" thread can run for 43 pages if it's so "abysmal", plenty of people seem to have given their opinions.
Personal attacks are for pompus cretins, and are a last resort for people (the same usual suspects) with nothing to say. Water off a ducks back.
Maybe you should lock it down.


----------



## Tin Pot (10 Dec 2015)

I think it's a great thread, and not really all that confrontational compared to some.

There's nothing wrong with strong disagreements!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Dec 2015)

[QUOTE 4048775, member: 9609"]You may recall my Pink hat from earlier in the thread - _it was a xmas pressy that got thrown immediately in the bin in a "I'm not wearing that moment", and as I had paid good money for it (wasn't from a charity shop or owt) I thought I would get some use out of it (I don't care about such things and in any case I can't see it when its on)_ Anyhows - I have noticed that when wearing it, occasionally cars and vans will drive slowly past with the male drivers peering over - LOL - they soon sod off when we get eye contact, but I do wonder what they are thinking, surely they can't think I'm a sexy woman from behind, I'm waiting for the day someone tries to slap me arse as they go past, they would certainly regret it if I caught them up.[/QUOTE]

In her 80'2my Mother in Law used to ride on the back of the tandem.

Wearing leggings and a fleece top to be practical, the assumption as that she was female, she used to get comments especially from young lads, as they came up behind

I remember one young lad complimenting her bottom, then as he passed being treated to her best impression of a toothless old hag!

He nearly fell off and his mates found it extremely funny


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Dec 2015)

Justinslow said:


> ...
> 
> I'm surprised such an "abysmal" thread can run for 43 pages if it's so "abysmal", plenty of people seem to have given their opinions.
> *Personal attacks are for pompus cretins*, and are a last resort for people (the same usual suspects) with nothing to say. Water off a ducks back.
> Maybe you should lock it down.



Firstly, I don't recall personally attacking you, and secondly, what was the intended title of this thread? Bell ends on bikes??

it didn't exactly start on a high point did it?


----------



## Scoosh (10 Dec 2015)

MOD NOTE
OK - we've reached the point when posts are being made about posts and posters, not about the OP, so time to Close. 

7/10 in the civility stakes - can do better !


----------

