Crackdown in Oxford

[glenn forger]

It isnt against the law to not wear hi vis.

 

[Milkfloat]

Just two per cent of speeding drivers are convicted. Trafpol numbers have been halved. There are hardly any trafpol now, so diverting officers away from making the roads safer makes no sense.

I can guarantee that far less than 2% of cyclists without lights are convicted. In this case, the cyclists were given the equivalent of a 'producer' - entirely fair in my opinion. As a group I think cyclists need to appear to be complying with the law to help win any debate with drivers who are not.

 

[Karlt]

I'd give 'em - and the pavement cyclists - the option of a Cyclist Improvement Course, like the Driver Improvement Courses they offer speeding drivers. The advantages would be:

1. Cyclists wouldn't be put off by being made to cycle on roads because the course would give them the confidence;
2. I could train as a trainer and going by the number of pavement cyclists around my way I'd have enough clients to live this IT job and do something useful instead.
3. I'd be able to offset some of my cycling kit against tax

I know that strictly speaking only the first is a societal benefit, although a less bad tempered Karlt cycling on the roads can't be a bad thing.

 

[Karlt]

(I did know one public spirited soul who used to flag down Ninjas and give them a set of cheap Aldi £2 lights, if only to prove that they're really not expensive and there's not really much of an excuse)

 

[glenn forger]

When old bill start declaring that cyclists should dress up in hi vis every time they get on a bike they reinforce the notion that a fully legal rider with no hi vis is to blame in a rtc.

 

[Milkfloat]

When old bill start declaring that cyclists should dress up in hi vis every time they get on a bike they reinforce the notion that a fully legal rider with no hi vis is to blame in a rtc.

Full agree with you on this one.

 

[Karlt]

I haven't had chance to listen to the report (at work) but if they're telling people they "should" have hi-viz I agree there's a problem. I don't go out of my way to wear hi-viz; it's one of those difficult issues where what's best for an individual is what's bad for the group as a whole. On the one hand if lots of people start wearing it and I don't them I'm potentially at a disadvantage. On the other hand if I wear it I'm contributing to the situation where those who don't are disadvantaged.

 

[jonny jeez]

(I did know one public spirited soul who used to flag down Ninjas and give them a set of cheap Aldi £2 lights, if only to prove that they're really not expensive and there's not really much of an excuse)

Its not the cost...its the look.

Lights are bare geek man, I don't be rude when I is lit up!

 

[Karlt]

Is that the look that includes a slammed saddle even on a MTB so the rider is riding with their knees around their ears, as if they were on a BMX even though they're not? Hardly a 'look' (other than 'clueless twit') but then what do I know? I'm even less down wid da yoof now than I was when I was da yoof.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's just my experience most cyclists without lights are the estate kids on bikes around here, the same ones who are on and off the pavement, they certainly don't wear helmets/high vis. But then again most of them are under 18. And there's the whole grey area about you cant expect a 7 year old to ride on the road. So at what point do we start applying the laws to under 18 cyclists.

 

[summerdays]

o at what point do we start applying the laws to under 18 cyclists.

16

 

[MissTillyFlop]

From BBC South

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p036cwk3

Damn it, thought that was an offer.

*Puts away pipe*

 

[glenn forger]

PC Mark Pilling said:

“This campaign is aimed at educating cyclists about how important it is that they are fully visible to all other road users. Just because a cyclist can see where they are going on a well-lit street, does not necessarily mean that they are fully visible to motorists approaching with their headlights on.

“Cyclists should have a light on both the front and back of their bike and they should wear either some fluorescent or high visibility clothing.

- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/169904-...lmost-170-cyclists-fined#sthash.xtpR1UHq.dpuf

The next thing is a ped without hi vis will be held culpable.

 

[mjr]

The next thing is a ped without hi vis will be held culpable.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/12/...council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green/

 

[Venod]

We have a local Wednesday Afternoon Cafe ride. a few weeks back a driver pulled out of a junction ahead on the cyclis'st left he pulled out and for some reason stayed on the right of the road he turned onto so collided with the group head on 2 hit the car, another fell off whilst braking hard, the driver admitteed responsibilty, one bike snapped in half, wheels ruined on the other, all three guys minor injurys and shocked, BCF were contacted for help claiming insurance, they seemed more concerned that hi viz was not being worn than chasing a payout, I do hope were not on a slippery slope to legislation.