Tollers
Guru
- Location
- San Francisco, California
jambo123 said:Hello folks. First post here.
Welcome Jambo. Hope you like it here!
Tollers
jambo123 said:Hello folks. First post here.
Crankarm said:Absolute tosh. I was walking around Cambridge this evening toward The Backs and there were lots of student/lecturer types cycling without lights in black or dark clothing who were practically invisible.
totallyfixed said:I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas.
Rhythm Thief said:Still, riding without lights is a stupid thing to do. And (be honest with yourself), can you imagine how aerated you'd get if we were discussing motor vehicles without lights? You wouldn't be finding excuses for them.
Norm said:A dozen drivers in a particularly big storm 22 years ago.... so yeah, if you want to use that as justification for reducing our speeds to 20mph on every unlit road, I can go with unlit numpties.
Cab said:I entirely agree that you should have lights! But on most town centre streets I find no visibility difference based on vehicles (bikes or cars or whatever) being well lit. If anything, lighter coloured clothes (or paintwork) and reflectors are more useful.
I think we over-react to cyclists without lights. They're in the wrong, but I'm not seeing a good sense of perspective here.
MartinC said:That's a useful generalisation. At night it's hard to distinguish dark objects from the road background. The difficulty of doing it doesn't mean you don't have to bother. It means you have to drive more slowly. It's also why it's a good idea to have bright lights if you're cycling - it means you stand a better chance of mitigating the effects of the drivers who aren't taking enough care.
Norm said:you haven't yet commented about whether you feel that is justification for a blanket 20mph speed limit in unlit areas.
It was my idea, thanks.MartinC said:This was your idea. Can't see that the requirement to drive inside the distance you can see translates into a blanket ban in unlit areas- far to many variables. If you hit something that was there then clearly you weren't doing it. If you can't judge it then you shouldn't be driving.
GrasB said:The other thing is sometimes it's hard to tell how much clear vision you have on the roads in the dark. Perspective & object perception can get morphed in the dark fairly easily as your brain miss-interprets the signals that the eyes are sending to it. From a physically incorrect picture of what you're looking at you've got a hard time to work out exactly how fast is to fast, more to the fact your standard reaction times have just gone out the window & you have no idea they have until you're put in the position of needing to react.
At the end of the day when you're driving, cycling, walking etc. you're balancing risks. At some point there's a decision which says this an acceptable balance & that is a judgement call, you really have a responsibility to minimise the impact of other peoples misjudgements.
MartinC said:Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.
MartinC said:Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.
Rhythm Thief said:I can understand why you think the argument is "unbalanced" (without necessarily agreeing with you, mind), but I don't understand why you seem to be trying to find excuses for the sort of nutter who rides around at night with no lights on. After all, if "One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people", surely that applies to cyclists too?