Starting to develop a dislike for A.M. joggers

[Jimmy Doug]

You're riding on a shared use path get over it, this is like cycling on the pavement and complaining about pedestrians not being lit up.

No it's not. The only people who should be on the pavement are pedestrians, so they don't need lights, whilst in this situation it's a shared path. Shared path means shared responsibility: cyclists have to beware of pedestrians, which means they must have lights and not bomb past pedestrians, giving no space; pedestrians must beware of cyclists, which means they must wear adeqaute clothing.

If you can't see a jogger, how are you going to see a fallen tree across the path?

Good point. But a fallen tree isn't at risk, only the cyclist risks getting hurt. In the OPs situation, the joggers are at risk, which is why they should wear reflective clothing.

 

[Dan B]

On most (all?) shared use paths in the UK, pedestrians have priority and cyclists should give way. That's afaik the law, and it's also the right thing: the cyclist is going faster and therefore bringing the danger, so is also responsible for mitigating it

 

[Dayvo]

Another problem with pedestrians on shared pathways is their use of iPods or similar.

Not only can't they hear your approaching (most often by using a bell), but they have a tendency to wander across the path, instead of keeping to one side, make an overtake difficult for the cyclist.

Yes, they may have right of way, but they have a responsibility for their own safety, too.

 

[MrJamie]

I'm a jogger too. But there's no way I'd ever even consider going outside at night without wearing reflective clothing (although I only run during the day). All the runners I know around here wear high-viz jackets and sport a head-torch. To say it's Sheldon's fault isn't fair. So he doesn't have a magichsine? Come on! How long have these powerful lights been around? When I first started commuting the most powerful light I could get hold of was an Everready lamp! It was quite adequate then. Does the existence of ultra-powerful - probably too powerful - lights on the market now move the goal posts? Sheldon is kitted out appropriately; it's the joggers in this situation who need to be aware that they're sharing with cyclists and so adapt an appropriate attire.

I didn't say it was Sheldon's fault at all I was just trying to be practical by suggesting that since he/we can't really change the behaviour of the unlit users, his best option is probably to upgrade to a more powerful light. It seem's he's also come to the same conclusion and is going for an upgrade

Since you ask my opinion I don't think you need to buy the latest lights but I think its important to ride at a speed within which you can stop well within visable distance for hazards, which if you're crashing into unlit people probably isn't the case.

Can't see the point why, they all ready have more than enough of lighting system set up. A person wants to act irresponsibly then why should someone else brunt the cost.

Maybe im spoilt with modern lighting, but I think riding a pitch black woodland path with a weak light (originally rated at 12 lumens!) is a long way from having "more than enough lighting".

 

[tadpole]

First off, if you’re kitted up to ride, why can you not see them? You’ve got lights, it’s dark, surely any kind of movement will alert you to the fact you’re not alone.
Secondly
Imagine you’re a woman running alone, in the dark early in the morning, what would you think was safer
Run with a (cap) light which destroys your night vision, so all you can see it that tiny patch of light bobbing in front of you, but nothing else, and marks you out as a slow moving target for anyone motionless in the dark.
Or
Run without a light on a track you know, with perfectly adequate night vision, unseen by anyone who is motionless in the dark.
It is sometimes safer to ninja run for women. You, as a cyclist, should take responsibility for seeing obstacles in your way, and either slow down so you can react to them, or light up so you can see them.
I’m not a woman not a jogger either, but it makes sense to me, that sometimes not being seen means not being a target.

 

[Jimmy Doug]

sometimes not being seen means not being a target.

If I'm a cyclist wearing ninja clothing at night and don't have lights and I get hit by a car I can't complain that it's the driver's fault; if a jogger running down an unlit shared cycle path gets hit by a cyclist then (s)he must accept that they should do what they can to be seen. As for the Sheldon not seeing them automatically implying that he's going to fast argument - just when do you think you'd see an unlit jogger in the pitch black? Not until you're darn close is what I'm thinking.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them. What about helmets? What do these people think they are doing just running and walking about? Are they insane?

Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'

GET A GRIP PEOPLE; GET A GRIP.

 

[Jimmy Doug]

so are we now advocating that pedestrians on a shared path must use lights and wear hi-viz

Yes - well high-viz clothing anyway. I mean, if a pedestrian walks on an unlit road at night wearing black and not carrying a torch (I mean the road, not the pavement) we'd think he or she was balmy. The same applies here.

so the cyclists don't have to alter their behaviour on jot to deal with them.

No - cyclists must adapt their behaviour too - the responsibility is shared on a shared path.

Change the roles, replace cyclist with driver and pedestrian with cyclist and think of your local shared use road, and start the whole thing off with 'I try to be a safe driver'

As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.

 

[tadpole]

If I'm a cyclist wearing ninja clothing at night and don't have lights and I get hit by a car I can't complain that it's the driver's fault; if a jogger running down an unlit shared cycle path gets hit by a cyclist then (s)he must accept that they should do what they can to be seen. As for the Sheldon not seeing them automatically implying that he's going to fast argument - just when do you think you'd see an unlit jogger in the pitch black? Not until you're darn close is what I'm thinking.

I cycle along an area of unlit cycle path everyday and can see ninja walkers and ninja dogs, and even the odd ninja runner, how? Because I look for them, I'm thinking about what I am doing. AS for the going too fast, if Sheldon does not have the time to react, then yes he is going too fast for the conditions he is riding in.

 

[Jimmy Doug]

I cycle along an area of unlit cycle path everyday and can see ninja walkers and ninja dogs, and even the odd ninja runner, how? Because I look for them, I'm thinking about what I am doing. AS for the going too fast, if Sheldon does not have the time to react, then yes he is going too fast for the conditions he is riding in.

Agreed that cyclists must always be on the alert and adapt his behaviour/speed in this circumstance. But it's such an easy gest to put a reflective jacket on. They weigh nothing, they cost nothing, they can fit in your pocket, and they really make you stand out. Surely, if you're the vulnerable road (or pavement, or whatever) user, then you should do your best to help faster, less vulnerable users see you. I'm not saying that the cylist doesn't have any responisibility in this sort of case - but what I am saying is that if I risked getting hit, I'd take appropriate measures to help prevent that happening.

 

[tadpole]

As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.

Sorry but your example is not valid, the runner/jogger was not on an unlit main road, there is no comparison between a ninja cyclist on a main road and an unlit runner on a cycle path/shared path.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes - well high-viz clothing anyway. I mean, if a pedestrian walks on an unlit road at night wearing black and not carrying a torch (I mean the road, not the pavement) we'd think he or she was balmy. The same applies here.

Barmy. Eh? No I'd think they were normal people doing normal things and expect other roads users to behave in a way that considers the possibility of their presence. I've come across hundreds of such folk when driving. Never hit one.

No - cyclists must adapt their behaviour too - the responsibility is shared on a shared path.

so ride slower then. end of. and where do you get this shared responsibility nonsense from. peds are there of right, we're the ones intruding, given permission in law to be there in most cases. The cyclist represents the greater risk. They carry the greater part of any responsibility.

As I said before, if you reverse the roles and imagine an unlit, dark clothed cyclist being hit by a car at night, the conclusion you'd draw is that the cyclist should make an effort to be seen. Same thing in this circumstance.

If that happened the conclusion I'd draw is the driver who has headlights and ABS, and who should have been driving in a manner appropriate to their stopping distance and the possibility of other road users being present, some of whom may be unlit and not wearing hi-viz is probably 99%, at least, to blame.

Far too many cyclists bring a driver's mindset to their cycling and treat pedestrians just like drivers treat cyclists. That won't do.

 

[Jimmy Doug]

Sorry but your example is not valid, the runner/jogger was not on an unlit main road, there is no comparison between a ninja cyclist on a main road and an unlit runner on a cycle path/shared path.

May I draw your attention to this:

The last 3 KM of my ride are mostly on an old railway line that runs through the woods, and at 6 A.M. it's pitch black outside. The ride passes through some marshy areas and this morning was very foggy and hard to see.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Agreed that cyclists must always be on the alert and adapt his behaviour/speed in this circumstance. But it's such an easy gest to put a reflective jacket on. They weigh nothing, they cost nothing, they can fit in your pocket, and they really make you stand out. Surely, if you're the vulnerable road (or pavement, or whatever) user, then you should do your best to help faster, less vulnerable users see you. I'm not saying that the cylist doesn't have any responisibility in this sort of case - but what I am saying is that if I risked getting hit, I'd take appropriate measures to help prevent that happening.

hi-viz in the dark is useless unless something illuminates it.

the same level of illumination makes even a ninja visible.

that's how lights work.

vehicles, including bicycles, should not be travelling faster than their operators can see.

 

[tadpole]

and they really make you stand out..

My earlier point was that, some people who run, don’t want to stand out, they perceive rightly or wrongly that they are safer not being seen by neds and scrotes rapists and muggers. Given the low risk of being meeting someone else on the shared path at that time in the morning, and the even lower risk of being run down by in inattentive cyclist, compared to the ‘perceived’ high risk of being raped or mugged or even just mocked/ insulted, some women runner, I think, take what they think of as the lesser of two evils, and ninja run.