Meh. What's your answer to the question about what the difference is from a motorist's perspective?
Idiots on bikes
- Thread starter Justinslow
- Start date
-
- Tags
- winter is coming
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
[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.
Find one post where someone says it's a good idea, or even irrelevant, to not have lights in the dark.
liambauckham
Über Member
- Location
- Bradley Stoke, Bristol
like the energizer bunny it just keeps going on and on and on
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Yes I remember it too, I still remembered most of the words too, very effective isn't it?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
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."
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
Smash the cistern
@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.
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.
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......?
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
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
No, I never did. I told you it was hard to see against plenty of things which are common in winter, specifically:
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.
Agreed, but:
Rubbish. I'm just back from a very nice 20 miles riding without lights.
And @0-markymark-0 is the last person I expected to imply that pedestrians should be giving way to cyclists! Has someone stolen him?
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
And today's pedant points go to...Yes it was.
It was after sunset the previous day.
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.
- Status
