Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[steve50]

The lighting law is delegated to regulations so I'm not sure it passed through parliament. The current regulations reenacted the 1984 ones with modifications but pedal reflectors weren't modified. The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download... do you know why a presumably-new requirement wasn't applied to older bikes?

While searching, I did notice pedal reflectors were illegal for a brief time in the 1950s due to a slip-up drafting a law: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1957-11-26a.993.0#g993.1


Why do you want to reduce the relative conspicuity of other lawful unlit road users like that? Bit selfish, innit?


No, the difference of opinion doesn't make you wrong - it's repeating unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate that makes you wrong.

Where am I repeating "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate" (your own opinion), I have put forward my own views on wearing hi viz or reflective tape on my cycling gear, it is MY view not anyone else, if that does not meet with your chosen view or opinions then tough, as I have already said it does not make me anymore wrong than you.

Really?

So you wear reflectives even when there is no light to be reflected from it?

Yes, don't you get it, the reflectives are sewn into my jerseys and jackets and tights etc, I do what I think is required to get myself noticed when out on my bike, it is my choice, my view, my opinion. You don't have to like it.........honest.

 

[Mugshot]

That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.

I agree that the comment you referred to was too strong, however it is I think worth considering the effect that Steve using daylight running lights and bright clothing etc has on the perception of what should be the accepted norm for all cyclists, if the effect he is having on that perception is to create an expectation that cyclists should by default run lights in the day and wear bright clothing then it's not ok.

 

[Salty seadog]

I can see two horses. Is there a third one?

Yes but it's not got lights on...

 

[potsy]

Yes, don't you get it, the reflectives are sewn into my jerseys and jackets and tights etc, I do what I think is required to get myself noticed when out on my bike, it is my choice, my view, my opinion. You don't have to like it.........honest.

Oh, so it's just a fashion thing, why didn't you say so?

 

[mjr]

That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.

Is it a bit strong? Any time a cyclist is hurt by a motorist, it seems like even other cyclists will critiicse the cyclist for going too fast, going too slow, not wearing their pet fetish clothing, wearing too much disliked clothing, not wearing a helmet, wearing a helmet and so on. I'm sick of it, especially when it appear the critic doesn't even do the legal minimum for the situation the cyclist is hurt in and does some things that seem like beggar-thy-neighbour moves like using Daytime Running Lights!

Where am I repeating "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"

Couldn't find one with cyclists on but the principal is the same

View attachment 333802

Yeah, there's two horses and one of them is damn site more visible than the other , Fact!!
Imo if you are wearing some sort of reflective material or high viz it increases your chances of being seen from a greater distance ie; by a car approaching from behind you. You are more visible as per the horse and rider pictured.

hi viz gear or tape or whatever form it comes in was invented to increase the visibility of the wearer

high viz and other protective gear may help prevent an incident.

I am going to wear a brightly coloured jacket in an effort to make myself visible

 

[steve50]

I agree that the comment you referred to was too strong, however it is I think worth considering the effect that Steve using daylight running lights and bright clothing etc has on the perception of what should be the accepted norm for all cyclists, if the effect he is having on that perception is to create an expectation that cyclists should by default run lights in the day and wear bright clothing then it's not ok.

As I have already stated it is my personal choice, what anyone else chooses to do is up to themselves.
Personally i do think drl's are a good thing as , so it would appear, do car manufacturers.

 

[mjr]

Personally i do think drl's are a good thing as , so it would appear, do car manufacturers.

I understand that car manufacturers don't have the choice any more because your fellow fools at the United Nations working group that sets vehicle regulations have compelled manufacturers to fit DRLs to new car models else they won't get approved for road use in most of the world.

I worked out how to deactivate the ones on my black car.

 

[steve50]

Is it a bit strong? Any time a cyclist is hurt by a motorist, it seems like even other cyclists will critiicse the cyclist for going too fast, going too slow, not wearing their pet fetish clothing, wearing too much disliked clothing, not wearing a helmet, wearing a helmet and so on. I'm sick of it, especially when it appear the critic doesn't even do the legal minimum for the situation the cyclist is hurt in and does some things that seem like beggar-thy-neighbour moves like using Daytime Running Lights!

All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"
Jeeze your like a dog with a bloody bone, as I have stated above........it is MY View, my choice, my opinion, I can't make it any clearer than that. What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.

 

[steve50]

I understand that car manufacturers don't have the choice any more because your fellow fools at the United Nations working group that sets vehicle regulations have compelled manufacturers to fit DRLs to new car models else they won't get approved for road use in most of the world.

I worked out how to deactivate the ones on my black car.

I hope you are never involved in an rta then as your insurance company would take a very dim view of that.
And I am nobodys fool thank you.

 

[mjr]

All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"

And it's not like your views can't be unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate?

What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.

So why do you keep posting Be Seen BS?

 

[Bimble]

@steve50 I think @mjr is coming from the point of view that people who insist cyclists should wear hi-viz means that cyclists are somewhat abdicating the motorists duty of care to keep a proper look out for you - which drivers / operators should do regardless of what cyclists are wearing.

It's an interesting thought, and is somewhat akin to the perception by some that a cycling helmet should be a required modern-day cycling "safety" device worn by everyone, as the popularity of marketing them has increased (I know helmets are to discussed elsewhere - I just mention them as a similar parallel with hi-viz).

Thankfully, in the UK at least, we still have a choice regarding all of the "extra" measures we can take with regards to our safety (or perception of it) - but the danger is ever present that if enough people (not necessarily cyclists) shout loud enough about it, we could end up being required to adopt it.

 

[Markymark]

All those quotes are MY OWN VIEWS not "unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate"
Jeeze your like a dog with a bloody bone, as I have stated above........it is MY View, my choice, my opinion, I can't make it any clearer than that. What others choose to wear when out on their bikes is entirely up to them, I really couldn't give a monkeys.

So should the police be dealing with people who don't dress according to your views or should it, you know, be up to the person?

 

[mjr]

I hope you are never involved in an rta then as your insurance company would take a very dim view of that.

Why do you think that? I checked with my motor insurer that they do not require DRLs (amongst other things), like I checked that my bike insurer doesn't require Sold Secure or impose a ban on rail station cycle parking or anything like that, but I also hope I'm never involved in a collision with another vehicle. I hit a few inanimate objects when I was first driving, but I doubt a concrete pillar would have gotten out of the way if I had lights on!

 

[steve50]

And it's not like your views can't be unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate?


So why do you keep posting Be Seen BS?

Don't you get it yet?????
It is my opinion, my bloody choice fgs.

So should the police be dealing with people who don't dress according to your views or should it, you know, be up to the person?

I've already stated it is up to the individual what they want to wear riding their own bike, they can ride it butt naked for all I care.....is that clear enough for you?

 

[Bimble]

they can ride it butt naked for all I care.....

No, please, not that - besides, where would you attach the lights?

I reckon you would get stopped for that though.