I thought the main argument was: yes, it's wrong, but why does it matter to you so much more than the factors which contribute to more collisions? ;-)So quite a few interesting responses to this thread, the main argument amongst the neigh Sayers seems to be that you shouldn't need a light to be seen, the others should be able to spot you.
I wonder if comparing a road to an ocean loses a salient distinction between an intrinsically hazardous natural environment and a public space regulated by civility and law, and whether a swimming pool would not be the better analogy? I don't go to any special lengths to make myself highly visible when swimming in the public baths.So quite a few interesting responses to this thread, the main argument amongst the neigh Sayers seems to be that you shouldn't need a light to be seen, the others should be able to spot you.
I wonder if these people, if they were ever unfortunate enough to be in a plane crash, when putting on the inflatable lifejacket would rip off the attached light saying no need for this, I disregard any responsibility on my part to be seen and place that responsibility onto someone else to spot me?
I vote that this pun be stricken from the record, on the grounds of foal play. Only in this way can we stop Dan B's rein of terror, and keep Cyclechat stable, hay?....which is eventually going to leave even the neigh sayers sounding a little horse
The best I can do is http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspxI thought the main argument was: yes, it's wrong, but why does it matter to you so much more than the factors which contribute to more collisions? ;-)
That bullet list looks like it isn't in what I remember as the order from the TRL study but hey, it's TRL so check it carefully. The TRL website is giving me an error instead of PPR 445 anyway. RoSPA's "often riding off a pavement" is weasel wording, whereas I think "motorist disobeyed stop signal or give way" is in the TfL top 5 for 2011-2013 but it's missing from RoSPA's list.
Umm, I think it's slightly silly for anyone to make themselves vulnerable but therein lies a completely different question really. My route is reasonably well lit, so I think I could probably get away with no lights and be perfectly safe, even in the darkest parts. I choose to use lights, but that's more so I can be seen while I skim through slow moving or stopped traffic, in case people get the sudden inclination to swerve in on me. That said, if I were more cautious and took things slowly then I really can't see a safety issue at all and I'd add that if people have trouble seeing me then they really should pop down to the optician.
As for the value of life, well that's a deep, personal question and I haven't the time to interview everyone, so I really couldn't answer it, but I imagine that some people really couldn't give a sh1t, no, and some might even be praying to get hit.
On another note though, I was riding home this fine evening and I found myself following another cyclist. I can confirm that until I got very close to them, I couldn't see that they were wearing high-viz so I'm very happy that I never spent a penny on that poop
Specsavers have some good deals at the moment.
Was it this bike?I saw a girl today with fairy lights on her bike. She was literally lit up like a Christmas tree