no blasted lights.

[I like Skol]

My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit

I sort of agree, except that the unlit cyclist is not an immobile object and can/will move from a shadowy area that you obviously wouldn't drive into at speed into a place where they are visible to be seen but too late for avoiding action (the proverbial 'they came from nowhere!'). That doesn't mean the driver was driving too quickly to stop in the road they could see to be clear.

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

 

[Linford]

My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit

A cyclist is part of the traffic as another vehicle and as such a lot more common on the roads than sheep...there are also warning signs when sheep or other animals are likely to be on the roads. You appear to argue that cyclists should be able to cycle wherever under any conditions and if they come a cropper, then it will always be someone elses fault ?

Laws appear to be made for other people in your book. Don't you feel that cyclists as a group would command more respect if the odd one didn't come out with this sort of nonsense ?

 

[Dan B]

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.

 

[Dan B]

A cyclist is part of the traffic as another vehicle and as such a lot more common on the roads than sheep

If that's supposed to be an argument that driving into a cyclist is less bad than driving into a sheep, I don't think it's a very good one.

 

[Linford]

If that's supposed to be an argument that driving into a cyclist is less bad than driving into a sheep, I don't think it's a very good one.

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

 

[J.Primus]

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

Do peds flooding out of a tube station into a road count?

 

[J.Primus]

If I have decent night vision should I be able to drive a car with no lights on? Surely if people don't see me coming they're going to fast.

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!

 

[Linford]

Do peds flooding out of a tube station into a road count?

Flooding is indicative of a lot of them. Peds by and large are only on the road because they are crossing it, not because they travel on it....unlike cyclists. I use my lights day and night on the cycle, motorcycle and in the car. I've had idiots cut across in front of me in cars when cycling, but not because they didn't see me, but more than they thought I was moving more slowly than I actually was.

 

[J.Primus]

[QUOTE 2755249, member: 1314"]Bambies in RP innit

Don't need a front light in London, from Zone 1 through to Zone 5, on roads with streetlights. I've cycled home twice this week at night, 15 miles, no front light, no hi viz. I did the same a week or so back as well. My top does have white stripes which, I guess, can act as reflectors. Cars ahead/on side roads saw me just fine.
Need a front light for RP at night, though, to see, and to make sure the bambis dodge you.[/quote]

RP?

 

[theclaud]

Flooding is indicative of a lot of them. Peds by and large are only on the road because they are crossing it, not because they travel on it....unlike cyclists. I use my lights day and night on the cycle, motorcycle and in the car. I've had idiots cut across in front of me in cars when cycling, but not because they didn't see me, but more than they thought I was moving more slowly than I actually was.

I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.

Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?

 

[J.Primus]

I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.

Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?

Might just be you. I just can't be bothered typing out pedestrians repeatedly.

 

[J.Primus]

[QUOTE 2755259, member: 1314"]Richmond Park[/quote]
It all makes sense now! I thought you were using some bizarre rhyming slang I'd never heard of

 

[Linford]

I must have imagined that I walked six miles mostly along roads on Sunday.

Is it just me that finds "peds" a dismissive, contemptuous abbreviation?

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

 

[theclaud]

Might just be you. I just can't be bothered typing out pedestrians repeatedly.

It must just be a coincidence then that it is, in my observation, mainly used by those who are complaining people being in their way.

 

[J.Primus]

It must just be a coincidence then that it is, in my observation, mainly used by those who are complaining people being in their way.

It must be