This Wiggins incident has brought the numpties out...

[Cycling Dan]

Are you missing the point that we don't need to pay or do anything to be entitled to cycle freely on the road.

nope

 

[classic33]

When those in charge of vehicles that require both the driver & the vehicle to be licenced to use the public highways apply the rules to themselves and not others. Then we could move onto getting other classes of vehicles & users licenced.
Until then theres not a lot that can be said.

 

[Mugshot]

He wasn't saying that - he was remarking the logically curious situation in which people complain that they have seen a lot of invisible people. You might think it silly, but it's important to note that when motorists claim they can't see people, it isn't literally true. What they usually mean is "I think you should signal your presence more emphatically." The difference is important because (except in total darkness) there is no universal criterion determining what is and isn't visible - it is about norms and choices. Some of us might argue that in conditions of low light the sensible thing to do is to radically reduce the speed of vehicles and to alter the balance of lighting so as to make their drivers look where they are going.

Really? I have to say that whenever I see that particular statement I always think it's somebody trying to be a smart arse. Which would you argue, that cyclists should be well lit or that (I hope I'm understanding you correctly here) everything else should be less well lit? Or maybe a little of both? I'm not quite sure which particular bit you are suggesting I find silly.

 

[theclaud]

Really? I have to say that whenever I see that particular statement I always think it's somebody trying to be a smart arse. Which would you argue, that cyclists should be well lit or that (I hope I'm understanding you correctly here) everything else should be less well lit? Or maybe a little of both? I'm not quite sure which particular bit you are suggesting I find silly.

I would advise cyclists to be adequately lit, or well lit according to their needs, but not to enter into a lighting arms race. I don't think the road environment is well lit as it is - I think it is very poorly lit, especially when it comes to car headlamps, which mainly dazzle and intimidate. I suspected you found it silly because in a sense it is a statement of the obvious - but sometimes the obvious requires stating.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis whilst travelling at 60mph on the northbound A281 at 23:30.

"Flip me" said the driver, or words to that effect "I couldn't see him"
"Yet you braked in good time, slowed down and overtook him gracefully, which rather gives a lie to your not seeing him. Thank you fpor doing that. He is an arse but you are not."

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Coming out of the office last night around 17:20 it was already dark, raining & this is in the middle of Sheffield, West Bar roundabout for those that know the area is about 200 yards from where I work. I saw 3 cyclists on the roundabout, the 1st was wearing black on the road going around the roundabout with no lights, the 2nd approached the roundabout on the footpath, proceeded across the road on the pedestrian crossing, went down the pavement at the other side, crossed over through the pedestrian refuges to the junction he wanted & then disappeared out of view on the footpath, again with no lights on. 3rd, had 2 lights on front, 2 lights on back, reflective material in various places including rucksack, was wearing light coloured clothes, came down the road, in a left only lane, but make a very clear arm signal at the bottom that he was turning left, when round the corner on his way.

Just pointing out, not all cyclists follow the rules.

Alan...

 

[Black Sheep]

I completely agree about changing the behaviour of drivers (hence the comment about making a few hours cycling a part of the driving test).

many of us motorcyclists feel that car drivers should have to do their CBT before they are allowed to take their tests so that people understand how powered two wheelers move on the road. Not sure if it would actually help, but I'm afraid to say, a bit more realistic to achieve than getting them to cycle.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis whilst travelling at 60mph on the northbound A281 at 23:30.

WOW he was doing well to pedal at that speed was it downhill

Alan...

 

[Mugshot]

I would advise cyclists to be adequately lit, or well lit according to their needs, but not to enter into a lighting arms race. I don't think the road environment is well lit as it is - I think it is very poorly lit, especially when it comes to car headlamps, which mainly dazzle and intimidate. I suspected you found it silly because in a sense it is a statement of the obvious - but sometimes the obvious requires stating.

Then, and I may be being a bit precious here, if somebody states that they saw a cyclist with no lights then a resonable response would be, to borrow your wording, "I think they should signal their presence more emphatically" not "Well you saw them didn't you?". To borrow your wording again, I think the difference is important because whilst your statement appears to suggest that the person in question could and should endeavour to make themselves more visible the other appears to suggest that cycling without lights is acceptable because you saw them, I find that silly.

 

[theclaud]

Then, and I may be being a bit precious here, if somebody states that they saw a cyclist with no lights then a resonable response would be, to borrow your wording, "I think they should signal their presence more emphatically" not "Well you saw them didn't you?". To borrow your wording again, I think the difference is important because whilst your statement appears to suggest that the person in question could and should endeavour to make themselves more visible the other appears to suggest that cycling without lights is acceptable because you saw them, I find that silly.

Acceptable doesn't really come into it. It's just a way of harumphing about others' foolishness. We all know that people will be on the road with inadequate or no lighting, and therefore should act accordingly. Whether you fume, harumph, or shrug your shoulders about it is neither here nor there, as long you don't plough into them at 60mph. I'm making an issue of the idea of seeing because "I didn't see her" cloaks what is actually nothing more than disapproval in the garb of factual observation. I have adequate, inexpensive, but usually unspectacular lighting, and even that requires not-insignificant spending, maintenance, and backup in the case of mishap (who amongst us doesn't have a drawer-full of temperamental rear lights)- riding in low light conditions is too everyday a thing for me to throw a lot of money and effort at, and I'm relaxed about the fact that every so often I'll drop a light down a cattle grid, get one pinched, or have one go bananas in the rain before packing in altogether. It's possible that the ninjas that everyone complains about are all reckless fools convinced of their invincibility, but it's just as likely that they are people who thought £7.99 was enough to spend on a rear light and are surprised that it doesn't work in the rain, who are skint so they bought one from a pound shop and don't realise that they might as well not have bothered at all, who stayed longer than they planned somewhere and didn't intend to ride home in the dark, who forgot that the clocks went back, who didn't bring spare batteries, who left the lights on the other bike etc etc. Silly, trivial, human reasons for being inadequately lit. Reasons that drivers don't have to worry about, because they have cut themselves off from the human scale. We should adapt road conditions to people's fallibility, not to driver's warped standards of behaviour.

 

[psmiffy]

Trouble is not that you cannot see ninjas if you are observing diligently - it is when you see them - last week I was driving to work in the early hours - would have had the pavement cycling one that flashed across my front if I had not taken the extra few seconds to check the gloom on my right for a second time

 

[Mugshot]

Acceptable doesn't really come into it. It's just a way of harumphing about others' foolishness. We all know that people will be on the road with inadequate or no lighting, and therefore should act accordingly. Whether you fume, harumph, or shrug your shoulders about it is neither here nor there, as long you don't plough into them at 60mph. I'm making an issue of the idea of seeing because "I didn't see her" cloaks what is actually nothing more than disapproval in the garb of factual observation. I have adequate, inexpensive, but usually unspectacular lighting, and even that requires not-insignificant spending, maintenance, and backup in the case of mishap (who amongst us doesn't have a drawer-full of temperamental rear lights)- riding in low light conditions is too everyday a thing for me to throw a lot of money and effort at, and I'm relaxed about the fact that every so often I'll drop a light down a cattle grid, get one pinched, or have one go bananas in the rain before packing in altogether. It's possible that the ninjas that everyone complains about are all reckless fools convinced of their invincibility, but it's just as likely that they are people who thought £7.99 was enough to spend on a rear light and are surprised that it doesn't work in the rain, who are skint so they bought one from a pound shop and don't realise that they might as well not have bothered at all, who stayed longer than they planned somewhere and didn't intend to ride home in the dark, who forgot that the clocks went back, who didn't bring spare batteries, who left the lights on the other bike etc etc. Silly, trivial, human reasons for being inadequately lit. Reasons that drivers don't have to worry about, because they have cut themselves off from the human scale. We should adapt road conditions to people's fallibility, not to driver's warped standards of behaviour.

There is nothing I disagree with here, but I do not believe it has anything to do with what I was saying originally. We frequently see on these pages a reference to somebody riding without lights, it is almost without exception that somebody will reply to that with, what I consider to be, the rather tiresome "Well you saw them didn't you?" I don't believe that the vast majority of the posters who reply in such a manner are doing so because they are attempting to make a point about infrastucture, driver attitude, social standing or retail expenditure, I think they're doing it because they think it sounds clever. My issue with this is that the extension of it is that riding without lights is somehow acceptable because the individual clearly wasn't invisible. I doubt that anybody reading these posts would take take this as a reason to ditch their lights but I don't personally see it as the witty quip which I'm convinced the majority of people that post it believe it to be, as I said, maybe I'm being a little precious about it.

 

[benb]

t'other night, as a passenger in a car, we came across Homo Hoodius Numptius Ninjensis ...

As a point of order, only the first word in Linnaean taxonomy should be capitalised (e.g. Homo sapiens), so it should be: Homo hoodius numptius ninjensis

Carry on.

 

[benb]

Just pointing out, not all cyclists follow the rules.

Thanks for that startling revelation!

 

[Boris Bajic]

I find that the drivers and cyclists who seem best able to make their way serenely, briskly and thoughfully through streets we all share with other modes of transport are those with some experience driving or riding them. I do not say that drivers who cycle are better drivers or that cyclists who drive are better cyclists...

But I find that a cyclist who has driven trailored vehicles, lorries, cars and so on has some extra protection in the form of anticipation through experience or somesuch similar.

Similarly, drivers who cycle may have a sense of what a cyclist in traffic is planning to do. I do hear cyclists I know getting themselves quite worked up about drivers. It is not an absolute rule, but these tend to be cyclists who do not drive.

Similarly, drivers who bleat about dangerous cyclists tend to be (but are not exclusively) non-cyclists.

As the father of a recently-qualified driver, I do find that other road users occasionally make few allowances for relative inexperience, despite the now-popular P-Stickers on nose and tail of cars. Drivers seem somehow branded by other road users as part of a single group, whether they are elderly, novices or driving in a strange land, seated on the wrong side of the car.

Likewise, some drivers seem to lump all cyclists together.

It doesn't help, but it doesn't detract much either.

There are barmies on both sides of the debate, but in my 40+ cycling years and nearly that many behind the wheel, I've found that we all rub along pretty well together.

I'd prefer it if all road users had some exprience conducting other vehicle types through our streets, but I'd hate to live in a land where it was compulsory.