Speed cushions causing problems, watch out around them.
- Thread starter Linford
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
You mean the authorities installing them instigating surveys which injured parties can use as evidence when suing these same authorities. ?. Ah yes that makes perfect sense
It is what happens in real life!
Any reported accident is recorded and can be used to evidence
Also use "Fill that Hole"
After a period of a year - point out that road is "out of repair" and could they comment before you proceed to a Section 56 process
Amazing how quickly repairs will happen
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
If you find the council's taking longer than reasonable to fix a hole, drop them an email telling them you've come off your bike after hitting it and have a bruised thigh and sprained wrist, and could they please send you a claim form. The hole will be fixed very quickly after that.
GC
OP
OP
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2867541, member: 45"]It's not pertinent, it's a trollishly ignorant attempt to drag things down a blind alley.
You should never drive or ride any road where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment. You've only got yourself to blame if you don't take steps to avoid this.[/quote]
So what you are saying is that a 'to be seen with' headlight is inadequate like these
Or low powered white ones like these are no good either ?
The lower one emits 4 candle power...this is the legal minimum for cycles. It is a 'to be seen with' lamp. Now you, I and everyone else knows that they are not going to light the road in front of you.
Are you suggesting that the law needs to be changed to exclude this type of tokenism as it is inadequate on the understanding that laws being put in place to protect people are not up to scratch, and these lights are not fit for purpose 'where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment' ) ?
You should never drive or ride any road where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment. You've only got yourself to blame if you don't take steps to avoid this.[/quote]
So what you are saying is that a 'to be seen with' headlight is inadequate like these
Or low powered white ones like these are no good either ?
The lower one emits 4 candle power...this is the legal minimum for cycles. It is a 'to be seen with' lamp. Now you, I and everyone else knows that they are not going to light the road in front of you.
Are you suggesting that the law needs to be changed to exclude this type of tokenism as it is inadequate on the understanding that laws being put in place to protect people are not up to scratch, and these lights are not fit for purpose 'where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment' ) ?
So what you are saying is that a 'to be seen with' headlight is inadequate like these
Or low powered white ones like these are no good either ?
The lower one emits 4 candle power...this is the legal minimum for cycles. It is a 'to be seen with' lamp. Now you, I and everyone else knows that they are not going to light the road in front of you.
Are you suggesting that the law needs to be changed to exclude this type of tokenism as it is inadequate on the understanding that laws being put in place to protect people are not up to scratch, and these lights are not fit for purpose 'where you can't see well enough to be able to respond appropriately to the environment' ) ?
Actually - adequate does not come into it as the green ones are actually illegal - the legal requirement is for white. Green lights are allowable for Doctors or others attending an emergency. It does not confer the same "rights of passage" as a blue light however.
The statement I think was that you should be able to see the road environment.
That is up to the individual to establish. If the road is well lit then these "be seen" lights are adequate, if the road is not well lit then they are inadequate - simples
Last edited:
oldfatfool
Guru
[QUOTE 2864855, member: 45"]I've never grounded my Fabia on a speed hump.[/quote]
May have been lowered ever so slightly on FSD's but the Octy was std.
May have been lowered ever so slightly on FSD's but the Octy was std.
oldfatfool
Guru
[QUOTE 2865711, member: 45"]Linf, you're coming across as a bleedin' idiot. You ask if there's a good way of negotiating the humps. Of course there is. You slow down. That's their purpose . They're not dangerous.[/quote]
User demonstrating is biking skills negotiating traffic calming measures in urban uk:
User demonstrating is biking skills negotiating traffic calming measures in urban uk:
OP
OP
Linford
Guest
The legal minimum is 4 lumens or 4 candle power. That is realistically not enough to illuminate the road (or see the road environment) , just to warn others that you are there. I would suggest that the legal minimum is reviewed in light of the deteriorating state of the roads (excuse the pun).
Also the new LED street lights are great for the immediate area, but inadequate for the gaps between them in comparision to the sodium ones.
What also of people using strobes on the front of their bike? ...still legal, but certainly not suitable to see by for any duration of time
OP
OP
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2867638, member: 45"]No, I'm saying that you're responsible for being able to see where you're going. Now grow up.[/quote]
You appear to be implying that the state of the roads is irrelevant and it is your own lookout when negotiating these poorly thought out and maintained 'hazards'
What about partially sighted pedestrians crossing the roads....should they be responsible for being able to see where they are going ? ...who's fault would it be if a visually impaired pedestrian tripped over the uneven surface...the highways dept, or the pedestrian for being partially sighted ?
You appear to be implying that the state of the roads is irrelevant and it is your own lookout when negotiating these poorly thought out and maintained 'hazards'
What about partially sighted pedestrians crossing the roads....should they be responsible for being able to see where they are going ? ...who's fault would it be if a visually impaired pedestrian tripped over the uneven surface...the highways dept, or the pedestrian for being partially sighted ?
Did you actually read my post before replying.?
Covered in my post....
Again covered in my post:
Again see above.....
A visually impaired person is a complete red herring when it comes to speed humps...... of course it is a convenient way of not recognising the valid point that sighted people do have a responsibility
OP
OP
Linford
Guest
Your post just evaded..how about a sensible answer ...why should it be up to an individual to define that standard ?
If the law states a light is required, then it should be fit for purpose ... 4 lumens isn't fit for purpose.
Are you suggesting that cyclists should carry 2 different sets of lights, one for using on lit roads, and one for unlit roads ? ...how utterly ridiculous is that !
OP
OP
Linford
Guest
I do!
Cree T6 for unlit - LED Flasher for lit.
You turn your CREE light off in the dark when you get into lit area's ?
Obviously not simple enough.
If a person is sighted and able to see then they have a responsibility to use that vision to cycle safely and to ensure that with the aid of adequate lights to either see the road ahead, or to travel at a speed where they can.
For someone who is partially sighted then there are issues, but not in this context. If you are going to argue that speed hupps should be removed because they are a hazard to those with poor sight, then you will also need to remove:
Kerbs
Streetsigns
Trees
Illegally parked cars
Buildings
Houses
Shops
The law is about visibility - not seeing.
Not only suggesting it but actually doing it!
.. and I am not the only one. Most experienced cyclists on a mixed commute will have lighting systems that can offer high power when required or lower power when not. It enables us to see the road ahead of us
