Riders in the mist...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

sidevalve

Über Member
Serious question: on a country road, how does dismounting help? Then they'll be travelling 15mph slower, without lights, and on the road a lot longer, so more vulnerable to getting knocked down.
Because you are breaking the law and shouldn't be on the road. If, as I assume you mean, there is no footpath then you can walk at the side of the road, which as a pedestrian you have the right to do. On a bicycle you are a vehicle, the law applies to you, sorry if it seems unfair that you have to obay the rules. As a pedestrian you don't have to have lights as a vehicle you do. As I seem to keep having to point out don't cry about somebody else breaking the law if you'r going to break it too.
As for Globalti's comment, well yes you're right and each to his own on the dayglo but the OP was [in effect] about what is a legal requirement for all vehicles in poor light ie lights and sadly demonstrates that SOME riders think they can ignore the laws everybody else has to accept
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
Because you are breaking the law and shouldn't be on the road. If, as I assume you mean, there is no footpath then you can walk at the side of the road, which as a pedestrian you have the right to do. On a bicycle you are a vehicle, the law applies to you, sorry if it seems unfair that you have to obay the rules. As a pedestrian you don't have to have lights as a vehicle you do. As I seem to keep having to point out don't cry about somebody else breaking the law if you'r going to break it too.

The question was not about the law. The question was how would dismounting be safer for the cyclist.
 
Because you are breaking the law and shouldn't be on the road. If, as I assume you mean, there is no footpath then you can walk at the side of the road, which as a pedestrian you have the right to do. On a bicycle you are a vehicle, the law applies to you, sorry if it seems unfair that you have to obay the rules. As a pedestrian you don't have to have lights as a vehicle you do. As I seem to keep having to point out don't cry about somebody else breaking the law if you'r going to break it too.
As for Globalti's comment, well yes you're right and each to his own on the dayglo but the OP was [in effect] about what is a legal requirement for all vehicles in poor light ie lights and sadly demonstrates that SOME riders think they can ignore the laws everybody else has to accept
I think we agree they shouldn't have been out there without lights, and we are all mystified as to how that happened that not one of them had a light: was it the Sunday outing of the Weight Weenies Cycle Club?

But once you are in the situation: the fog falls, your light (fails/falls off/forgotten at home), then I apply the rule that I apply to all my road usage

My safety>others safety > law > my convenience > your convenience (the last two mix around a bit).

(I checked a random bit of road in the area. http://goo.gl/maps/qHZ6d Walking on there would be much more dangerous, mile for mile, than cycling. Oh, and if I got pulled over for cycling without lights and the cop wasn't interested in my explanation, I'd suck up the £30 as a fine for leaving my house without adequate lighting, not for failing to get off and walk. And I'd be grateful that I was alive to pay it.)
 
OP
OP
johnnyh

johnnyh

Veteran
Location
Somerset
What I can't comprehend is that they had obviously cycled into the fog, and were heading further into it... surely a simple answer would have been to about turn and change route inland? Ho hum, numpties the lot of 'em.
 

davefb

Guru
always amazes me when i'm driving and I've stuck at least my sidelights on if not full lights in low visibility or perhaps dawn or dusk, but cyclists haven't got any lights on..

*always* have the lights on my bike (just in case), can't be bothered taking them off.... as johnnyh says, if someone says "I cant see you", then you'd hope someone would react accordingly, instead of moan.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
If someone says "I can't see you", then by definition they can see you. Unless they're in the habit of talking to thin air.
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
Got to love a pedant. :bravo:

I don't think it's merely pedantry. The stakes are being upped as to what constitutes visibility, and yet cyclists are not becoming more invisible. What people are actually saying when they say that they cannot see you is "I would like you to signal your presence more emphatically, so that I may exercise a lower level of observation and care, and a higher level of speed." Now it happens that I think a ride leader is being somewhat negligent if she has allowed a group ride to end up with no lights whatever in a reasonably predictable fog, but I think that's a fairly unusual situation. A rider or two being caught without a full set of working lights is, however, a reasonably common and understandable occurrence, and is exactly the sort of thing motorists ought to be looking out for.
 
OP
OP
johnnyh

johnnyh

Veteran
Location
Somerset
My point was and is that they were endangering their own lives with foolish behaviour to which they didn't want to take any responsibility, and had I not been a cyclist myself I would have driven away with a very low opinion of cyclists based on their attitude. (luckily I ride with nice people who are all of a higher IQ)

"What people are actually saying when they say that they cannot see you is "I would like you to signal your presence more emphatically, so that I may exercise a lower level of observation and care, and a higher level of speed."
I believe it is every road users responsibility to make sure they are visible/lit for the conditions - there is no excuse for not taking responsibility to make yourself visible and enhance your personal safety. Otherwise I could take to driving my dark grey Navara with the lights off at night/in fog and it is up to others to deal with it?
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
My point was and is that they were endangering their own lives with foolish behaviour to which they didn't want to take any responsibility, and had I not been a cyclist myself I would have driven away with a very low opinion of cyclists based on their attitude. (luckily I ride with nice people who are all of a higher IQ)

"What people are actually saying when they say that they cannot see you is "I would like you to signal your presence more emphatically, so that I may exercise a lower level of observation and care, and a higher level of speed."
I believe it is every road users responsibility to make sure they are visible/lit for the conditions - there is no excuse for not taking responsibility to make yourself visible and enhance your personal safety. Otherwise I could take to driving my dark grey Navara with the lights off at night/in fog and it is up to others to deal with it?

I don't know what that is. Is it a wankpanzer? If so I'd rather you either didn't drive it at all, or had someone walk ahead with a red flag.

I also don't know what IQ has to do with it. I don't think you're reading what I'm saying very carefully. I've agreed that the group in the fog should have had lights. I'm talking about who presents a danger to others and who is simply being unwise with regard to their own safety. You also missed the bit about upping the stakes.
 
I don't think it's merely pedantry. The stakes are being upped as to what constitutes visibility, and yet cyclists are not becoming more invisible. What people are actually saying when they say that they cannot see you is "I would like you to signal your presence more emphatically, so that I may exercise a lower level of observation and care, and a higher level of speed." Now it happens that I think a ride leader is being somewhat negligent if she has allowed a group ride to end up with no lights whatever in a reasonably predictable fog, but I think that's a fairly unusual situation. A rider or two being caught without a full set of working lights is, however, a reasonably common and understandable occurrence, and is exactly the sort of thing motorists ought to be looking out for.

Yes. And no. Up to a point.

What you say here fits well with your earlier writing on this thread: Driver, cyclist or astronaut, every road user should make some effort to be visible and no road user should be travelling at a speed exceeding that at which they can respond safely to possible incidents or unpleasantness.

However, I disagree (predictably) with what looks slightly like a generalisation (shown in bold above). Ever since the early days of the M25, when swathes of Hollywood fog blotted out the section past Sevenoaks yet still cars whipped past at 70+, I've been horrified by the ability of some motorists to imagine they have X-Ray eyes. It still happens and the malefactors are more often (in my experience) motorists than cyclists.

But... Most motorists I know do not look to other road users to increase their own visibility so others can exercise less care and give it more welly.

It may seem like that sometimes.

Both as a motorist and a cyclist, I've been surprised at the 'invisibility' of some other road users. I don't get involved or offer advice, but I notice these things as we all do. When I fail to see another road user as early as I'd like to - and where this is in part because he or she is poorly lit - my response is not that they ought to light up so I can be less observant and make faster progress.

Perhaps some people respond as you suggest to poorly lit cyclists, but I'd wager that most are concerned (as johnnyh seems to be) for their safety.
 

Pat "5mph"

A kilogrammicaly challenged woman
Moderator
Location
Glasgow
Because if I don't take them off ... someone else will:sad:

I own lots of duplicate lights of the smart sort. Reason being I can usually leave a rear light or two in a pannier just in case I get caught out. Of course sometimes you get caught out with out a pannier^_^ but not very often!
I see! I use various rucksacks :blush:
If I have to leave the bike for a while I will take the lights off, but always put them back on the bike on my return. I've got lots too, none very expensive. During the dark winter months I keep adding more, Christmas tree style ^_^
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
It's a pick-up truck, not sure what a 4x4 is, perhaps you can enlighten me??

It's a derogatory term for a 4x4, especially an urban 4x4. It might or might not have been coined by Smeggers of this parish. Working Land Rover Defenders are, I believe, excluded. Someone who cares more about the distinctions might be able to elaborate.
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
It's a derogatory term for a 4x4, especially an urban 4x4. It might or might not have been coined by Smeggers of this parish. Working Land Rover Defenders are, I believe, excluded. Someone who cares more about the distinctions might be able to elaborate.
sounds like a job for super Linf.
by night a mere cyclechatter , by day defender of the 4x4s . By the Oil of Shogun !!!
 
Top Bottom