Starting to develop a dislike for A.M. joggers

[Maz]

Maybe these people are vampires, wear garlic and see what happens

Or just ride a cross bike and watch them cower in fear.

 

[Graham]

Trying to find a similar situation:

A car drives down a country lane at night which doesn't have a pavement (so the road is 'shared' by cars and pedestrians). The car is driving only with its side lights on through fog at 50mph. The car hits a pedestrian. This must be the driver's fault as he has not adjusted his speed so that he can react to what is on the road in front of him. If the pedestrian is wearing black clothes, they may have contributed to their own downfall, but the original fault lies with the driver.

This is similar to the cyclist.

 

[redcard]

People have been going through "the woods", on foot, without reflectives and lights for thousands of years. What's changed is you on your bike. Maybe your attitude needs to change too.

There's some ridiculous arguments on this thread, but this one takes the biscuit.

 

[dodd82]

Trying to find a similar situation:

A car drives down a country lane at night which doesn't have a pavement (so the road is 'shared' by cars and pedestrians). The car is driving only with its side lights on through fog at 50mph. The car hits a pedestrian. This must be the driver's fault as he has not adjusted his speed so that he can react to what is on the road in front of him. If the pedestrian is wearing black clothes, they may have contributed to their own downfall, but the original fault lies with the driver.

This is similar to the cyclist.

I think yes - in a court of law, the majority of the liability would be with the driver.

However, it wouldn't be 100% - so common sense says that both parties are at least in part responsible for seeing/being seen.

A runner in dark clothing in the dark on a shared path is an idiot in my view, regardless of where the liability stands.

 

[4F]

That's a stationary object - a tree, for Christ's Sake. A tree cannot buy lights or reflective clothing, don't be pedantic.

If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.

 

[green1]

Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs).

If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?

Answer is - it isn't.

So if you run in to a deer you should run after it and get it's details?
If your black car parked up an the side of the unlit road I suppose you'd expect the side of it to be caved in when you got back to it and that would be ok?
If you can't react to danger by travelling too fast or having crap lights it's your fault no one elses.

 

[theclaud]

Not so. Reasonable pace on a bike is a lot faster than a person jogs (or runs).

If you run in the dark with dark clothes then you deserve to be run over. How stupid can you be? If you drove a black car along an unlit road with no lights at 20mph, you would expect to be hit. How is that the other driver's fault?

Answer is - it isn't.

Any speed is only reasonable when the cyclist can see that it's safe and clear to go at that speed. People should be able to go walking or jogging without cyclists crashing into them, whatever they are wearing.

 

[redcard]

That's a stationary object - a tree, for Christ's Sake. A tree cannot buy lights or reflective clothing, don't be pedantic.



I'm not. If somebody WILLIINGLY runs in the dark in black clothing then they're a dick.

What about a pothole? Always the riders fault if they hit one, right?

 

[snorri]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106284-Jogging-Gun

 

[redcard]

If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.

What about a puncture? Always the riders fault?

 

[MrJamie]

If the OP cannot see obstacles in his path whether they are stationary or moving then clearly he either has insufficient lights or is riding too fast for the conditions. I note fog was also mentioned so my guessing is on the latter.

http://www.biketechshop.com/planet-bike-beamer-3-bike-headlight-p-2412.html 12 lumens output, 100 hours runtime on 2AAs. Visability in pitch black foggy conditions with a light like that must be pretty terrible at any decent speed.

Hopefully Sheldon will get his new lights, be very impressed and err... see the light

 

[4F]

What about a puncture? Always the riders fault?

What about a puncture, how is that even relevant ?

There's some ridiculous arguments on this thread, but this one takes the biscuit.

you said it

 

[4F]

http://www.biketechshop.com/planet-bike-beamer-3-bike-headlight-p-2412.html 12 lumens output, 100 hours runtime on 2AAs. Visability in pitch black foggy conditions with a light like that must be pretty terrible at any decent speed.

Hopefully Sheldon will get his new lights, be very impressed and err... see the light

I think the description of that light says it all
"the Beamer 3 is an economical light for cyclists who want to be seen, and occasionally need a little more light to see by"

 

[400bhp]

if a ped is coming from the opposite direction, what are the chances of the runner running into a ped?

Or another runner rather than a ped?

Anyone answer this? In particular, 2 runners going in opposite directions.

 

[tadpole]

I'm not. If somebody WILLIINGLY runs in the dark in black clothing then they're a dick.

You cycle on the road, knowing that is it dangerous to be on the road without a heavy steel box round you. so if you’re daft enough to do that and someone runs into because SMiDSY it's your fault for willingly putting yourself in danger, and the conclusion must be the same.