1976, police warning for short mudguards

[BoldonLad]

They didn't have cyclechat to thrash these matters out over 47 page threads.

I think we need a Public Enquiry

 

[grldtnr]

The likes of Dixon had died out long before '76. The likes of Gene Hunt ruled the roost by then.

They were just in their final pre retirement years when I joined and I tells ya, the Phil Glennister portrayal of Hunt was mightily toned down compared to the real thing.

More like Constable Drago on Acid perhaps?

 

[Drago]

I was quite a mild mannered copper. That said, when I was a beat bobby the kids on my patch nicknamed me 'Chopper' because I reminded them of Mark Brandon Read.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

They didn't have cyclechat to thrash these matters out over 47 page threads.

Did you see the local letters page of cycling weekly? Debate raged on for 47 weeks.

 

[mjr]

"All thinking cyclists" oppose the principle that you must have a rear light to show your presence?

Yes, because it is the responsibility of all road users to be able to stop within what they can see to be clear, using their own headlights. Widespread use of rear lights encourages road users to assume that any bit of road with no red light in it is clear, which stops working abruptly when there's a sheep, tree or child in the road. Opponents of compulsory rear lights said that it would encourage some to travel too fast, crash and blame other road users for not making themselves "visible". Turned out they were correct.

 

[Alex321]

Yes, because it is the responsibility of all road users to be able to stop within what they can see to be clear, using their own headlights. Widespread use of rear lights encourages road users to assume that any bit of road with no red light in it is clear, which stops working abruptly when there's a sheep, tree or child in the road. Opponents of compulsory rear lights said that it would encourage some to travel too fast, crash and blame other road users for not making themselves "visible". Turned out they were correct.

I am 100% certain that rear lights (on all vehicles, not just bikes) have caused a significant reduction overall in accidents.

Yes, some will travel too fast because they expect anything in their way to have lights. But regardless of what SHOULD happen, far more will have only seen something in time because it did have lights. FAR more.

 

[mjr]

I am 100% certain that rear lights (on all vehicles, not just bikes) have caused a significant reduction overall in accidents.

Yes, some will travel too fast because they expect anything in their way to have lights. But regardless of what SHOULD happen, far more will have only seen something in time because it did have lights. FAR more.

I don't see how you can be 100% certain when no evidence is available and no testing was done. Denying the possibility that more people have died as a result of "drive into any unlit space" than have been saved by "must not hit that red light" is pure Stockholm Cycling Club stuff, simply accepting the motoring lobby's word, from a time when the motoring lobby was especially zealous.

 

[Alex321]

I don't see how you can be 100% certain when no evidence is available and no testing was done. Denying the possibility that more people have died as a result of "drive into any unlit space" than have been saved by "must not hit that red light" is pure Stockholm Cycling Club stuff, simply accepting the motoring lobby's word, from a time when the motoring lobby was especially zealous.

I am 100% certain because there is absolutely no way you are going to make me believe there is any possibility that people who are more visible are more likely to be hit.

Nor do I believe for one moment that any significant portion of people travel faster because they expect anything else in the road to be lit.

 

[Drago]

I am 100% certain because there is absolutely no way you are going to make me believe there is any possibility that people who are more visible are more likely to be hit.

Nor do I believe for one moment that any significant portion of people travel faster because they expect anything else in the road to be lit.

When manufacturers started to fit rear fog lamps as standard, they were usually twin units. This was linked to a type of incident collision where the following car driver assumed the car ahead was braking and took panicky avoiding action and ended up crashing. This is why fog lamps are now fitted singularly unless more than a certain distance from the light cluster.

And there is evidence that daytime light usage, particularly over bright lights, actually promotes a certain type of collision - by breaking up the riders outline the observer is deprived of the necessary visual datum required to accurately calculate velocity, and T bone type collisions in particular arise out of this.

Blindly assuming any type of light usage (or indeed any measure introduced in the name of "safety") will automatically reduce collisions or casualties is a losing proposition.

 

[mjr]

I am 100% certain because there is absolutely no way you are going to make me believe there is any possibility that people who are more visible are more likely to be hit.

"More visible" is nonsense. There are no invisible road users. But that's not as important as this:

Nor do I believe for one moment that any significant portion of people travel faster because they expect anything else in the road to be lit.

How else do you explain all the drivers who go faster than their ability to stop in the range of their headlights, then?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I am 100% certain ...

It's possible to be convinced of something yet still be wrong.

 

[Alex321]

When manufacturers started to fit rear fog lamps as standard, they were usually twin units. This was linked to a type of incident collision where the following car driver assumed the car ahead was braking and took panicky avoiding action and ended up crashing. This is why fog lamps are now fitted singularly unless more than a certain distance from the light cluster.

And there is evidence that daytime light usage, particularly over bright lights, actually promotes a certain type of collision - by breaking up the riders outline the observer is deprived of the necessary visual datum required to accurately calculate velocity, and T bone type collisions in particular arise out of this.

Blindly assuming any type of light usage (or indeed any measure introduced in the name of "safety") will automatically reduce collisions or casualties is a losing proposition.

I wasn't talking about daytime light usage. Although I do have mine on whenever visibility is reduced, even in daylight. I don't do as some cyclists and always have them on regardless of conditions.

 

[Alex321]

"More visible" is nonsense. There are no invisible road users. But that's not as important as this:

How else do you explain all the drivers who go faster than their ability to stop in the range of their headlights, then?

Stupidity.

Those drivers mostly wouldn't drive any differently if no vehicles had rear lights.

 

[grldtnr]

Stupidity.

Those drivers mostly wouldn't drive any differently if no vehicles had rear lights.

It isn't stupidity, it's negligence. You can be Stoopid, and yet be an effective driver/ rider.
You can be super intelligent, but negligent, and do Stoopid as stupid does.
It's negligence that got me knocked off and in a hospital bed 20 odd years ago, not stupidity.
Stupidity is more a lack of training or ability.
Negligence is plain fact ,you are competent, but disregarded the situation so caused an incident.
Hence your oik who blatts about in/on high powered vehicles, speeds then collides.
That's not an accident things happen.

 

[Lone Wolf]

No problems with the cops around here. They don’t even stop open dealing at the train station let alone stop cyclists 😂😂 Mind you, you have to spot one first.