no blasted lights.

[theclaud]

Of course, I'm never a ped...ever....Jeez Claudine will you get over yourself
You make out that being a pedestrian is part of an exclusive club

I'm seeking guidance from @Adrian's example in that respect.

And I am making out quite the opposite of what you suggest. As ever.

 

[I like Skol]

EDIT: It is also quite unusual to find an unlit tree in the middle of a road.

There were loads of them around here a week ago.

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!

See what I mean?

 

[MontyVeda]

I would certainly not argue for a reduction in compensation because of High Viz for peds, but I do feel that we all have a responsibility to keep ourselves from harm. The notion of compensation is a sideshow when the loss of life as a consequence is so final.

yet cyclists and pedestrians that do make themselves more visible by using lights, reflectors or hi-viz still get knocked down and/or killed by those in control of motor vehicles... and those drivers continue to claim 'it wasn't my fault', 'i didn't see them' as if their failure to pay proper attention is of no consequence.

 

[Dan B]

How many herd or flock animals do you see on your daily commute in London ?

None at all

 

[Dan B]

Also if you're cycling at night, lights are not just about your safety. If you're trying to cross a road, a cyclist in black with no lights is very hard to spot especially as they make no noise. One of the few times you can't complain about a ped stepping in front of you!

I'n not really seeing how whether the cyclist is invisible really makes that much difference to whether it's ok for them to ride their bikes into pedestrians or not. For the avoidance of doubt: it isn't ok.

If you'd said "leap out" you might have a point, but a pedestrian stepping out into the roadway is a long way from being the fastest or most unpredictable thing you might encounter while cycling.

 

[Linford]

It all makes sense now! I thought you were using some bizarre rhyming slang I'd never heard of

Richmond Park = Cycle in the Dark innit

 

[Poacher]

Not often (possibly ever?) I like a Linf post, but gotta give him this one!

 

[Linford]

yet cyclists and pedestrians that do make themselves more visible by using lights, reflectors or hi-viz still get knocked down and/or killed by those in control of motor vehicles... and those drivers continue to claim 'it wasn't my fault', 'i didn't see them' as if their failure to pay proper attention is of no consequence.

Not too sure how many witness statements you have made over the years for RTA's (or indeed attended court as a witness), but the first things which are asked are What time of day did it happen, what was the visibility like, did the victim have their vehicle lights on.....they look to rule out mitigating factors in the defence in that the victim may have been in poor visibility and not illuminated properly. I've been there a few times now so am familiar with the drill (as a victim or as a prosecution witness)

 

[400bhp]

I do wonder whther 3 of the poster/viewer's here are joined at the hip

 

[400bhp]

Might go out tonight playin chicken on the A56.

Anyone fancy it? It's my right innit.

Must remember to teach my 4 year old the one about the right to play on the road too.

 

[Dan B]

Might go out tonight playin chicken on the A56.

It sounds appealing, but I've only just got back from dazzling pedestrians in the beam of my headlights while bearing down on them at full speed and causing them to jump out of the roadway. Nearly winged a couple, too, but it was their fault for jumping the wrong way: they must have known I was there after I airzounded them

 

[400bhp]

It sounds appealing, but I've only just got back from dazzling pedestrians in the beam of my headlights while bearing down on them at full speed and causing them to jump out of the roadway. Nearly winged a couple, too, but it was their fault for jumping the wrong way: they must have known I was there after I airzounded them

Airzound and nobbber peds in one go.

 

[400bhp]

You are making the basic mistake of confusing a desire to see other people take proper responsibility for the risk they bring to the roads for a desire to abrogate responsibility ourselves. There is a simple test you could employ. If you find yourself about to post something broadly in agreement with what Linf thinks, stop, sit back and have a bit of a think about it.

You are of the presumption that I believe that responsibility is an absolute, in that all the liability is with that with the greater risk, in this case the drivers.

I don't think that.

I'd prefer legal responsibilty to be first with that which carries the greatest risk but that would not absolve individual's for taking respnsibility for themselves.

 

[Linford]

You are making the basic mistake of confusing a desire to see other people take proper responsibility for the risk they bring to the roads for a desire to abrogate responsibility ourselves. There is a simple test you could employ. If you find yourself about to post something broadly in agreement with what Linf thinks, stop, sit back and have a bit of a think about it.

Will you listen to yourself.....you would cut off your nose to spite your face if you thought it might agree with something I posted.
This actually says a lot more about you as a person than me as a poster.
You have become a caricature of yourself Adrian, a walking, talking joke

 

[I like Skol]

......it will be hijacked by those who like a good argument in the face of reason!