Mr Taxi Driver - the Fashion Police

[sonic]

snapper37, I do appologise if my post came across as overly aggressive - I felt it to be a measured and informative response, although admitedly i was slightly irked that after shouting at the driver you then came and bad-mouthed him on here, when it was you that was at fault. never the less, i should be keeping that "irkedness" to myself.

To address your responses -

"If you'd read the thread, you would have seen Foss giving me some advice ref lights and advice taken on board"
- I did not feel that foss's response covered the points i wanted to make about the visibility of reflectors and the kind of lights that are not suitable, along with not addressing your error in analysing the situation. rest assured i read the thread thoroughly

"He was looking straight at me whilst still pulling out"
- this is a common mistake in many vehicle interactions, where people are sure that they made eye contact. Far more likely was that he was looking straight through you - i.e. looking straight at you but still not seeing you.

and contrary to what you may deduce from my profile, that was not my first post.

Mad@urage, you make an interesting point!

"If I drive or cycle into the side of a black taxi, can I claim it is the driver's fault because (s)he is driving a black (therefore invisible) vehicle?"
- If they were driving in the dark with no lights on (or say, a flea sellotaped to the bonnet ) then yes, you could.

"I wonder what colour the taxi was. I wonder whether there were bright lights shing from its side."
- I'm slightly confused by what point you are making by this. No-one is asking that any vehicle have bright lights shining from its sides. Our road system is designed such that, as long as every vehicle has forward and rear facing lights, they will always be seen by other road users when necessary to avoid collision (disclaimer: if the road users are looking properly!)

Yes, many drivers do not look properly. And even those that do look properly could still improve, and would see even an unlit cyclist if they made the effort to. But when it comes to attributing blame, if you don't have a light that is equivelant to BS 6102/3, then it is your fault for not having decent lights, not the drivers fault for not seeing you.

anyway, in a bid to turn this into a contributive post, may i heartily recommend these lights to anyone looking for a bit of oomph -

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LED-Bike-Bicy...isure_Cycling_Bike_Lights&hash=item255e73716e

I've seen a few threads around discussing these things. you can get them from ~£65 from the uk and ~£50 from the far east, claimed power is 900/1200 lumens, from comparing my one i'd say they are around 600-700 lumens. and someone said something about headtorches? I wear my one mounted to my helmet - you can shine it straight at drivers if you need to, and i think it works a treat! of course, it is far far more than you should ever need - i just like to give car headlights a run for their money!

 

[Mad at urage]

Mad@urage, you make an interesting point!

"If I drive or cycle into the side of a black taxi, can I claim it is the driver's fault because (s)he is driving a black (therefore invisible) vehicle?"
- If they were driving in the dark with no lights on (or say, a flea sellotaped to the bonnet ) then yes, you could.

I specified the side of the vehicle. As you say below, we require only forward and rear-facing lights.

"I wonder what colour the taxi was. I wonder whether there were bright lights shing from its side."
- I'm slightly confused by what point you are making by this. No-one is asking that any vehicle have bright lights shining from its sides. Our road system is designed such that, as long as every vehicle has forward and rear facing lights, they will always be seen by other road users when necessary to avoid collision (disclaimer: if the road users are looking properly!)

As you say, we do not require side-facing lights, yet we mange to see the unlit sides of vehicles. There is also an assumption that we (all of us in control of vehicles) will be able to avoid the unlit walls and hedges that abound in our road systems. My point is simply that "I didn't see you because you are wearing black" (as some part of your clothing) just isn't good enough.

Yes, many drivers do not look properly. And even those that do look properly could still improve, and would see even an unlit cyclist if they made the effort to. But when it comes to attributing blame, if you don't have a light that is equivelant to BS 6102/3, then it is your fault for not having decent lights, not the drivers fault for not seeing you.

Ahh then that is where we disagree. You see I believe (as a car driver) that I am responsible for seeing any hazard in (or which can reasonably be expected to enter) my intended path - lit or unlit. If I fail to see an unlit hazard (whether that is a parked skip, a child or a cyclist) then it is my fault and I would not dream of blaming the skip/child/cyclist. Yes that means I should see the ninja cyclist and failure to do so would be my fault.

anyway, in a bid to turn this into a contributive post, may i heartily recommend these lights to anyone looking for a bit of oomph -

http://cgi.ebay.co.u...=item255e73716e

I've seen a few threads around discussing these things. you can get them from ~£65 from the uk and ~£50 from the far east, claimed power is 900/1200 lumens, from comparing my one i'd say they are around 600-700 lumens. and someone said something about headtorches? I wear my one mounted to my helmet - you can shine it straight at drivers if you need to, and i think it works a treat! of course, it is far far more than you should ever need - i just like to give car headlights a run for their money!

This (IMO) is part of the problem we are increasingly seeing on the road:

I too cycle with a bright helmet light (Hope Vision 1 Adventure - this one http://www.bikeradar...-light-10-39875) and an Electron Terra 2 Front Light on the bike (can be set to alternate flashing in traffic). I wear a flashing red rear on the helmet and two separate red rears on the bike (flashing during the day and one constant at night).

Nowadays this combination (with a 'night vision' jacket and several reflective bands) is fairly normal. Fifteen years ago it would have been seen as excessive (I rode with about the same bike lights and a head-mounted front light - because 5 miles of my commute was off-road, but just a couple of ankle-bands).

When I started cycling, the idea of "What do you expect us to wear? Bloody flashing lights like a Christmas tree?" was a joke response (and seen as such); nowadays the answer at least in the UK appears to be "Yes, of course" (but not for example in cycle-friendly countries such as Netherlands!).

You of course state that you "just like to give car headlights a run for their money!", but the direction we are moving is that everyone will need to do this. This increases the cost of cycling significantly. The lights on my bikes cost around £300 total, which is not a lot to spend on bike lights, but is indeed a lot of money to many people; It is certainly enough to put people off cycling, which just by itself is enough to make it A Bad Thing.

Cyclists who accept this state of affairs and are contributing to the problem (this includes me, with my bright attire and lights), but we should at least be calling out as wrong, the idea that everyone using the roads must be brightly attired and lit. Pretty soon it will become accepted that pedestrians too must wear flashing lights (it has already started for joggers). It is all part of and contributing to The Car Culture. Whilst you may be happy to "just like to give car headlights a run for their money", it is a competition that you will lose because a car has the power to carry around bigger generators and will eventually outshine you anyway, leaving you (and all the cyclists and pedestrians who are left) unseen in the shadows around their bright lights.

I'm sorry that some cyclists here don't seem to see this logic: Perhaps a little research on their part (into the way our eyes work, how they adapt to different levels of light, how long this takes and how the adaption can be destroyed by bright lights) would help them see that this is a dead end (literally) for cyclists and walkers.

 

[sonic]

"yet we mange to see the unlit sides of vehicles"

Let me clarify - whether we manage to see the sides of vehicles or not, you should never end up t-boning a car if it has it's front and rear lights on. If it did not have it's front and rear lights on then it would not be your fault that you didn't see it.

"You see I believe (as a car driver) that I am responsible for seeing any hazard in (or which can reasonably be expected to enter) my intended path - lit or unlit."

Indeed this would appear to be, to an extent, where we disagree. As a driver (and as a cyclist) I expect a very high standard of myself - this includes being able to stop at all times within the visible distance ahead of my vehicle, predicting any mistake that may be made by another driver, and - as you state - being able to see every hazard or potential hazard, whether lit or unlit. However, were I to make a mistake and fail on one of these expectations, and someone else caused a collision, I would not concider myself at blame.

Say I am driving along a road and a car is pulling up to a junction on my left. If I failed to notice his approach and failed to cover the brake pedal in case he pulls out, and then he did pull out, causing a collision, I would be dissappointed in myself, but i would not blame myself - I would blame him/her.

Say I am pulling up to a T-junction, I look to my right and fail to notice an unlit/inadequately lit cyclist, and pull out, causing a collision. I would be dissappointed in myself, but I would not blame myself - I would blame the cyclist.

It is my assumption that the law sees it the same way. (If anyone actually knows - please contribute!). I'm fairly sure that Snapper did not have a legal-equivelant front light, which would leave the blame with him, whether or not the driver could have performed better.

"When I started cycling, the idea of "What do you expect us to wear? Bloody flashing lights like a Christmas tree?" was a joke response"

Now this is what I really want to address - you make a fantastic point! I admit I've never thought about it in term of escalation. So yes, I believe I must be contributing to the problem. And now that I think about it, it will slowly be changing drivers expectations of themselves, and how they apportion blame - "well it wasn't really my fault - the cyclist's lights weren't that bright". So how do we combat the problem? The reason my lights have been getting brighter and brighter is because other road users still do not see me - and it's all well and good being safe in the konwledge that it is their fault if they hit you, but that wont help you very much if you are dead On one hand, one could take a stand and not contribute to cycle light escalation, but on the other hand - who would? when it effectively means increasing the risk to your life.

I've always said that drivers need "attitude" training before getting a license, and that driving licenses should only be for a period (i.e. 10 years). But I'm not sure even that would help, so what do? very tough one....

 

[Mad at urage]

Indeed a tough one (and we'll continue to disagree in our expectations of ourselves as drivers of a tonne or so of lethal machinery, but that's OK with me ).

As I said I am aware of contributing to the problem. When I turn out in the morning with a helmet and two lights on my head, as well as several flashing on the bike, the local schoolkids see it* as both remarkably funny (at least they are not yet indoctrinated with the idea that everyone should dress like that) and - more unfortunately, as how cyclists dress (because cycling's dangerous and 'cos cyclists are ridiculous ).

Attitude training for drivers might help (but the above illustrates a major problem with that), an attitude exam more so (but I don't see that happening anytime soon). But a process of lighting escalation is indeed what I see happening and why these sort of expectations annoy me (of course until WW2 cycle lights were not required, because car drivers were supposed to see unlit cyclists and slow down in case they were there).


Serious question (whilst we are on the subject of complying with regulations): Where can you get BS6102/2 pedal reflectors compatible with MTB spd-type pedals (since we all must have these, unless our bikes were first manufactured prior to October 1985)?





*'Look The Funny Cyclist Hahahahahah!'

 

[sonic]

well, i think you may have inadvertantly suggested a solution there, mad@urage - remove the legal requirement for cyclists to have lights. As far as i remember, pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road (although possibly only when there is not a pavement) and they are not required to have lights. I know it sounds counter-intuative, and certainly to begin with would wreak havoc, but it would reset the onus to the driver to look out for anything, lit or unlit, that may be/become in their path. A nice thought, though practically I can't quite see it working. what a shame.

As for the pedal reflectors on MTB pedals - the simple answer is - you can't. In a lot of cases, however, it is quite easy to glue the reflectors on, as long as you don't intend on regularly bashing your pedals off things. Although you can get some really nice MTB pedals that still have the mounts for reflectors. Wellgo Mg-1's are really nice, really grippy, very light and less than £30 on the old ebay, and come with reflector mounts. Or were you talking about SPD? in which case, you can get plastic cages that clip on to standard SPD pedals (shimano M520 and the like) which have the amber reflectors on them - makes the pedal look a bit more like an M424 if you're trying to visualise it.

As for me, if a police officer asks, my plan is to tell him the pedals are off my grandpa's bike, which was bought in 1982. Then watch him try and prove otherwise. I more than make up for my lack of pedal reflectors - i think it's fair to use a little bit of common sense.