Idiots on bikes

[ufkacbln]

The onus is on me as a cyclist to be able to stop within the distance I can see to be clear, not on elderly pedestrians to get out of my way. To-be-seen lights are just a way of shifting the responsibility from me onto them

But surly melt it is up to these pedestrians to be well lit and wearing hiviz?

After all that is the argument for this thread

Unlit pedestrians are idiots?

 

[mickle]

I dispute that. But more importantly, everyone knows that it's not uncommon for cyclists to be unlit or poorly lit, for whatever reason. Motorists demonstrate that they know this by banging on about it at every opportunity. So everyone admits that they know they are reasonably likely, in the course of any journey, to encounter a road user who is vulnerable and relatively inconspicuous, but motorists refuse to accommodate this reality because it obliges them to take responsibility for the danger they present. What's the difference, from the point of view of the care required from motorists, whether someone is an 'idiot', or is a child/someone whose battery ran out/someone who was unexpectedly late home/someone who swapped bikes and forgot to swap lights/someone whose rear light bounced off and broke when they hit a pothole/etc?

This is the post that this thread has been waiting for.

 

[benb]

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.[/QUOTE]

So in the absence of a link to a post saying cycling in the dark without lights is OK, as you claimed, I'll take that as a no then.

 

[Justinslow]

Oh right, I forgot that you are a special case and that hurtful comments affect you more than everyone else.

I am quite sensitive........

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]
the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks.

 

[glenn forger]

Ninjism more like.

 

[theclaud]

But I get it now, you just hate motorists, any motorists with a passion, it all makes sense now.

 

[Justinslow]

So in the absence of a link to a post saying cycling in the dark without lights is OK, as you claimed, I'll take that as a no then.

This was never a question, as it wasn't dark, it was a really very dull start to the day, just after sunrise (although the sun was obscured by clouds) many posters have said that lights or bright colourful clothes were not necessary, some of us on here disagree with that, this is the crux of the issue.

 

[theclaud]

You've been to Bicester Outlet Village again?

Xmas shopping for my favourite trolls, innit?

 

[mickle]

You are miscounting. You have forgotten the word bellend in the OP

Also 'idiots' in thread title.

 

[theclaud]

This is the post that this thread has been waiting for.

 

[oldstrath]

Nice, that's a hat trick of abusive comments!
Sorry, I personally can't do anything about the motorist you describe, I'm not really sure what you want me to say or do? Write to your MP, ask for better policing, better training, more severe punishments?
Doesn't stop any cyclist/pedestrian/road user being more pro active about making themselves seen.

I know fine you can do nothing about it. Which is the exact same as I can do about some guy on a bike in Suffolk. You clearly recognise there is no such thing as collective responsibility for white van men, that I cannot judge your driving by some clown at the other end if the country. So please, stop going on about collective responsibility fot cyclists.

 

[mjr]

I hope you weren't operating a camera with your hands and riding at the same time..............

That's another thing that is still legal, isn't it? It may be foolish, but seeing as it rarely causes harm that isn't covered better by another offence (such as wanton cycling), why add red tape?

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]the tread is brim full of some of the darkest and dangerous ninjaism I have ever come across.[/QUOTE]
And yet, not a single bit is quotable?

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]But in their defence they do shout cyclist when seen at a distance, and they are easy to spot at distance through hedges etc, and just like flashing lights as a driver I find them to be a great warning that there is a cyclist ahead.[/QUOTE]
That's an argument I find baffling. Why the heck do you want to warn other road users that you're only a cyclist? The justice system hates us, so they can do almost anything and get away with it. Take a cyclist's leg off and get fined £750, for example: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=42853

[QUOTE 4046321, member: 9609"]Particularly the flashing lights, just as it is obvious you are approaching a lorry when you see the cab top lights,[/QUOTE]
Is it only me that sometimes mistakes them for a bus at first glance?

DRL should turn off when headlights ( dipped or main beam) are on . I know when i leave the V40 lights set to auto they do. they are also low down so not pointing in yer face

Yes, but many motorists don't turn the headlights on because their dash is lit and they can see the DRLs being reflected back at them, so their tail lights aren't lit.

Like I said I dont know why I didn't see it before - being a cycling forum, the hatred towards motorists, it's plain to see, it over rides people's common sense

I'm a motorist too (and I suspect many of us are) and think this forum is better than some at keeping it specific at hating nobber motorists rather than all motorists. My heart sings when I'm driving along a dark country road and notice someone out for a walk. Just out for a walk in the dark, enjoying the stars and lights on the horizon, the wilderness and wildlife, not dressed like a space lemon or flashing a torch around. I feel it's great that we can still enjoy that freedom, that connection with the nature of our winter nights, and the pressure to street-light and hi-vis everything should be resisted for as long as possible. Unlit people don't cause me any problem simply by being unlit because even on dipped lights, I can see them clearly from far enough away to give them plenty of room - the headlight regulations allow a horizontal cutoff and if yours is below-horizontal, it's worth getting it adjusted by someone who can keep it the right side of an MOT test pass.

 

[ufkacbln]

One thing that is interesting from " across the pond"

The original post is about a cyclist in gloomy conditions not darkness

One could argue the point that in these conditions it is not a legal requirement and it is common to see both vehicles and cyclists unlit

However the developing conversation on some US sites is identical

It cites the responsibility of cyclist to be seen and gave lights

However the difference is they are discussing DRLs

Daylight Running Lights

Yep..... All the same arguments that you should be using lights bright enough to be seen in bt bright sunlight every time you cycle even if you have to carry multiple battery packs to allow you to do so

And is not just in the US, in the UK Lezyne have a setting on their rear lights that they "as being for daytime use Anderson not be used at night

How long before the high viz police and motoring lobby decide that daytime running lights are are essential for cyclists

 

[Justinslow]

Also 'idiots' in thread title.

That wasn't me, the "mods" didn't like the words "bell" and "end" in the title so substituted "idiots", fair play.