no blasted lights.

[drewc65]

Passed 3 people today with no lights on. This was between 05.00 and 05.15 this morning and on an unlit road. One didn't even have any hi viz at all. What is wrong with them do they think their bullet proof or something. Lights don't cost a fortune. The one with no hi viz on I almost hit and I was on my bike. IDIOTS ! ( rant over with )

 

[J.Primus]

The tree of life is self pruning.

 

[drewc65]

The tree of life is self pruning.

A bit off Darwinism there me thinks

 

[cosmicbike]

The tree of life is self pruning.

Yep, had a few of them last night, 2 lads, 1 bike, all wearing black, no lights, middle of the road, prats. No doubt it would have been my fault if I hit them though...

 

[Linford]

You can buy a flasher from Planet-X for £2 each, and that is containing the battery. At that price it is easy to carry a pair to give to unlight cyclists.

Would they have the brains to attach and switch them on ?

 

[I like Skol]

The tree of life is self pruning.

Yes but, do you want to be the poor sod that splatters one of these morons? (And let's not start the debate about it being the drivers responsibility to ensure the road is clear to proceed. Running/riding around in the road, in the dark, in traffic is just stupid and before anyone points out that pedestrians aren't lit, they have an obligation to cross when the road is clear!)

EDIT: Oh dear! TMN beat me to it

 

[Koga]

I see them regularly, at least 3 last night.
Most of them appear to cycle in a similar disinterested and slow (I wish I had a car and why do I have to push) way, probably on their way to work or heading home.
They are not a good image for the cycle community.

 

[Koga]

This one has been debated endlessly here. The essential problem is that the arrangements we have on our roads came on the back of a basic premise that only the great and good travelled along our roads at any speed and everyone else got out of the way. We have allowed that to continue so that all soft traffic is marginalized and unquestioningly so.

I like your response, but they should still have lights shouldn't they ?

 

[jarlrmai]

Let he who is with orange pedal reflectors cast the 1st stone.

 

[I like Skol]

This one has been debated endlessly here. The essential problem is that the arrangements we have on our roads came on the back of a basic premise that only the great and good travelled along our roads at any speed and everyone else got out of the way. We have allowed that to continue so that all soft traffic is marginalized and unquestioningly so.

Hmmmm. So what you are saying is that everyone should have the 'right' to wander around in the road at night without consideration for their own basic safety which should be the responsibility of everyone else? Are these the same people who also want the 'right' to own and use cars? It can't work both ways can it?

EDIT: It's wander, not wonder (I think).

 

[drewc65]

That's also the annoying thing they just wander around the road. Girl I was behind this morning no hands on the bars and swerving all over road and this road is used by HGV. I use it in my truck and they don't see me and my motor is 17 tons and bright yellow.

 

[Koga]

I am confused.com, thought this was about people not having lights on their bikes (in the dark) ?

 

[I like Skol]

Your replies illustrate my point. As a society we don't even question the arrangement that someone travelling along a road takes priortity over someone crossing it. We just accept that it is the way it is.

I don't see how your comment is relevant to this discussion. As you say yourself, society wants roads and cars so 'society' accept the conditions/compromises this entails. That is a done deal. How then does that make it ok for someone to go play in the road at night with no lights? It is a persons own responsibility to make sure they act safely to the best of their ability. Equally you could say a person should not go up a ladder without making sure it won't slip out from under them or go climbing mountains in winter in just their beach wear. It is a question of reasonable precautions.

 

[I like Skol]

I am confused.com, thought this was about people not having lights on their bikes (in the dark) ?

It is but, as I suggested several posts ago, it will be hijacked by those who like a good argument in the face of reason!

EDIT: I on the other hand have some decorating to be getting on with before SWMBO gets home. I'll pop back in later to make sure you are all playing nicely....

 

[Linford]

It is but that becomes a consideration of general rights and responsibilities on our roads. Drivers of large and dangerous vehicles bring a capability to kill or damage onto our roads. By and large pedestrians don't. A sensible arrangement would be that the drivers of those vehicles should be made responsible for that danger. What happens is the opposite with responsibility being transferred and calls for hi-viz for pedestrians and people driving with lights on so that pedestrians can see them and keep out of the way.

So what of the danger to pedestrians when they step out in the road in front of an unlit Ninja/silent cyclist moving at speed ?