400bhp
Guru
without lights to be comparable.
Starting to develop a dislike for A.M. joggers
- Thread starter Sheldon Bourgeois
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
without lights to be comparable.
In my experience running in the dark it does not take long for your eye sight to become accustomed to the light conditions and you can still see pretty well. Given that your moving speed is a lot less then I cannot see this being an issue.
No chance at all?
goo_mason
Champion barbed-wire hurdler
- Location
- Leith, Edinburgh
As has been said on this thread a few times, shared use = shared responsibility. Simples
All users should take responsibility for ensuring their own safety and the safety of other users. Problem solved.
Next?
All users should take responsibility for ensuring their own safety and the safety of other users. Problem solved.
Next?
Ok, jog on.
dodd82
Well-Known Member
wooooooo
So anyone that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong.
It always amazes me why people like you use a forum. Is it to preach?
400bhp
Guru
Graham & 4f - I honestly don't know as i've never been in that position.
If it's small then I guess as a default then to be seen whilst running is not an issue.
I guess if you do wear stuff to be seen then that makes you relatively more considerate?
There's a guy i come across when commuting in that walks his dogs on a field that has a shared use path. He has put flashing led's on the dog's collars. Great idea. This makes him a considerate person. Does this mean that those dog walkers that don't put LED's on their dogs less considerate? Yes, relatively speaking, but not inconsiderate.
If it's small then I guess as a default then to be seen whilst running is not an issue.
I guess if you do wear stuff to be seen then that makes you relatively more considerate?
There's a guy i come across when commuting in that walks his dogs on a field that has a shared use path. He has put flashing led's on the dog's collars. Great idea. This makes him a considerate person. Does this mean that those dog walkers that don't put LED's on their dogs less considerate? Yes, relatively speaking, but not inconsiderate.
The CTC were on the right track in the thiries when they campaigned against rear lights for cyclists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/14/cycling-ethical-living
Quote "At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
So substitute bicycles for cars and joggers for cyclists and here we are 75 years later arguing that the innocent party should be the one to take action.
Peter Armstrong
Über Member
Can I just remind everyone of the Cyclechat family motto " A fun and friendly online cycling community"
I'm not preaching or saying anybody else is wrong, what I'm saying is you can't compare a tree or a deer to a person. You may as well compare a car to an alarm clock. A deer or a tree can't wear hi-viz clothing. That's just mental, just as suggesting they should buy them. Why not say cats need indicators and dogs need reversing lights?wooooooo
So anyone that disagrees with your opinion must be wrong.
It always amazes me why people like you use a forum. Is it to preach?
The CTC were on the right track in the thiries when they campaigned against rear lights for cyclists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/14/cycling-ethical-living
Quote "At the time CTC was also still fighting to prevent regulations that would, eventually, force cyclists to use rear red lights. CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light."
So substitute bicycles for cars and joggers for cyclists and here we are 75 years later arguing that the innocent party should be the one to take action.
A cyclist isn't likely to kill a person. It happens, sure, but far less often than cars killing cyclists.
MrJamie
Oaf on a Bike
If there's enough light to be able to follow a path and not trip over your own feet, theres usually enough to see other runners and sometimes hear them approaching in my experience. I can't imagine anyone actually running in pitch black darkness though, you'd not be able to follow the path and have no confidence to build any speed up.
400bhp
Guru
I thought that was the situation we were discussing?
In a former life I ran, and ran alot at night, and given a few minutes in the darkness, my eyes were able to adjust to the point where even the light from a quarter moon would be enough to run 5 miles along a unlit track along side a quarry. It was a well used track, used by runners, cyclist, as well as dog walkers and couples. I can say that I've never "run into" anyone. Cyclists make more noise than runner, even runners make a pant pant flap flap noise, loud enought that you can spot and avoid them when you're 20 or 30 feet away. Dog walkers or their waterproof jackets tend to make a noise like a crisp packet, and dogs claws on the ground make a click click noise. If you are paying attention you can see dark on dark movement solely becasue it is moving. However you have to be paying attention... and that is the key.
Similar threads
