Riding without lights...

[Tetedelacourse]

Health and Safety legislation, the government and any health and safety advisor will disagree with you. Or rather, recognise the value of this approach.

 

[bonj2]

Health and Safety legislation, the government and any health and safety advisor will disagree with you. Or rather, recognise the value of this approach.

yeah but what about morally though?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

different kettle of fish.

 

[BentMikey]

I thought the thread started out relating to the responsibility of cyclists. Too many times these threads seem to filter down to the point where thje responsibility of the cyclist/pedestrian has been ignored or diminished and it’s all the responsibility of the car driver.

Sorry but, it starts to sound like typical ‘victim culture’, ( “OK maybe we should do better, BUT ITS NOT OUR FAULT, LOOK AT THEM!!”)

I’ve got a lot of ‘beefs’ with the attitude of certain car drivers, but that doesn’t absolve me from behaving responsibly on the roads.

On the contrary, no-one here has said that the ped/cyclist has no responsibility for their actions. My point, again, is just that the car driver has more responsibility to take care because he brings the most danger. If we all drove according to the highway code it wouldn't matter if a ped or cyclist or other car did or didn't have lights/reflectives, because you'd still be able to stop in time. The problem is that very few people drive to this standard, and yet all complain about the unlit ped/cyclist when you should first look to your own duty to drive safely.

 

[gambatte]

yeah but what about morally though?

Realistically as well, blame or not, ride like a twat, you’re liable to be scooped up off the road. Doesn’t really matter then what any H&S officer says about relative blame.

 

[gambatte]

Sorry about that - forgot about the ‘*’

 

[gambatte]

Whens the last time you passed a cyclist and thought, “that’s an accident waiting to happen?”

My answer - this morning heading towards J1 of the M18. 7am, dark. Middle aged guy on a ‘decent’ mtb. jacket had reflective beading, no lights. (I’ll not stress the no helmet bit, so’s not to provoke BM on that point!) The point at which I noticed him, the road was narrowing due to central pedestrian islands.

(Thought about stopping and advising him to get a ‘superflash’, just not to expect an armstrap!)

The fact that we notice them is a positive. However the fact of why we noticed them is that they were doing something which we felt could contribute to an accident.

 

[col]

I know. Sucks, doesn't it? I'm not saying that the cyclist is always blameless (you do see some muppet-ish riding in the dark), but in many towns the street lights are bright enough such that your visibility at night is excellent.

I wonder if the same argument would hold if it was vehicles that were driving around town with out lights on,because the town lights seem bright enough?

 

[gambatte]

I wonder if the same argument would hold if it was vehicles that were driving around town with out lights on,because the town lights seem bright enough?

Wonder if anyone'll answer this time Col? I posed virtually the same situation 3 pages ago

 

[BentMikey]

Whens the last time you passed a cyclist and thought, “that’s an accident waiting to happen?”

My answer - this morning heading towards J1 of the M18. 7am, dark. Middle aged guy on a ‘decent’ mtb. jacket had reflective beading, no lights. (I’ll not stress the no helmet bit, so’s not to provoke BM on that point!)

You noticed him - so don't go jumping to conclusions. It's a bit like the many many people who tell me I'm crazy to ride a low recumbent in traffic because people won't see me. It's complete bollocks, because in my experience people see me slightly more often than they do when I'm on an upright.

Don't talk to invisible people, else the men in white coats will come and take you away. (C) Mr Larrington. The point being that you shouldn't assume what is dangerous and what isn't.

And why did you mention helmets if you didn't think that was relevant? You're guilty of victim blaming in respect of that.

 

[Cab]

I wonder if the same argument would hold if it was vehicles that were driving around town with out lights on,because the town lights seem bright enough?

Same argument does hold true for those I'd have thought.

 

[col]

But who brings the danger? How is the pedestrian going to hurt anyone in an accident?

By making a vehicle swerve into a wall/oncoming vehicle/on to a path where people are,ect? possibly.

 

[col]

Same argument does hold true for those I'd have thought.

Im not sure it would by the police,or other drivers,they would be getting flashed furiously ,to let them know they didnt have their lights on,and possibly stopped by police.

 

[gambatte]

You noticed him - so don't go jumping to conclusions. It's a bit like the many many people who tell me I'm crazy to ride a low recumbent in traffic because people won't see me. It's complete bollocks, because in my experience people see me slightly more often than they do when I'm on an upright.

Don't talk to invisible people, else the men in white coats will come and take you away. (C) Mr Larrington. The point being that you shouldn't assume what is dangerous and what isn't.

And why did you mention helmets if you didn't think that was relevant? You're guilty of victim blaming in respect of that.

I noticed him later than I notice cyclists with lights, causing me to react in a shorter time, with more notice of his presence my reaction would have been even more measured than it was. Besides which I was actively looking for cyclists after the thread I started yesterday. Whether or not he was noticeable, he wasn’t legal, you’d surely lambast a car driver for the same attitude?

So you’ve never thought “that’s an accident waiting to happen”?

I did think the helmet wearing was relevant to what I thought, I’m pro helmet.
But as that’s been thrashed about endlessly before and the threads already diverted from ‘bad cyclists’ to ‘bad drivers’ I didn’t want to start another typical diversary argument.

 

[Cab]

Im not sure it would by the police,or other drivers,they would be getting flashed furiously ,to let them know they didnt have their lights on,and possibly stopped by police.

You mean that other motorists, being able to see a a bloke driving along on a well lit street, would lose their temper at him for not having his lights on? Who'd have thought it, bad tempered motorists

I agree, thats the law, and the job of the police is to enforce it, and the job of courts is to blame people who break the law, so if you have an accident without lights then that will be viewed as potentially contributory. But come on, you know as well as I do that on many well lit town streets visibility is restricted by how far away the next corner is, not how dark it is. All lights achieve in such places is they allow you to distinguish which car might move from in amongst parke vehicles.

So, yeah, people would get upset at him. The guy should have his lights on. But if whoever saw this then went on yabbering on about it like sometimes people do about cyclists without lights then I'd tell them to get over it, get a life.