Two Idiots

[BentMikey]

Darwin Strikes Back.

I live about a mile from his house!!

 

[subaqua]

60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

[Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24)]


Cyclist should have been prosecuted for no lights.

will be classed as contributory negligence in the event of a compo claim.

 

[BentMikey]

The cyclist already got fined - by the taxi driver. Just not in a monetary sense.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

If it was dark and the fool had no lights then I'd be appealing the fine if I was the taxi driver. How can you be expected to see someone with no lights (unless the street lighting is sufficiently bright, of course). Yes, peds aren't lit, but then they rarely run alongside the outside of the car on the road..

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I feel for the taxi driver in this case.

1/ No working lights or brakes

2/ Too close to the vehicle in question

3/ Not a cyclist but a POB IMHO.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I actually think the taxi driver's been a bit hard done by here. If the guy had no lights, it would have been difficult to see him!

Agree. The driver must have admitted he didnt look as if he'd said "Well I looked and I couldnt see anything coming in the road so I opened my door" it might have been different.

 

[fimm]

But - the taxi driver did not look. Therefore no matter what lights the cyclist had, the driver would not have seen him.

 

[gaz]

I feel for the taxi driver in this case.

1/ No working lights or brakes

2/ Too close to the vehicle in question

3/ Not a cyclist but a POB IMHO.

What has number 3 got to do with anything?

 

[kedab]

Darwin Strikes Back.

haha! yes indeed

 

[wiggydiggy]

But - the taxi driver did not look. Therefore no matter what lights the cyclist had, the driver would not have seen him.

How do we know he definitely did not look? He's being issued with a ticket for not looking but it doesnt mean he didnt, in all likelyhood he could contest it.

 

[gaz]

How do we know he definitely did not look? He's being issued with a ticket for not looking but it doesnt mean he didnt, in all likelyhood he could contest it.

He said he didnt look.

 

[BentMikey]

If it's an urban environment, then it's easily possible to see an unlit cyclist. We all love to complain about ninja cyclists, but they're not that hard to see really.

 

[400bhp]

He said he didnt look.

Where's he said that?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

What has number 3 got to do with anything?

Simply pointing out another case that the motorist could jump on. "The driver got fined the idiot cyclist who also broke the law got nothing"

 

[wiggydiggy]

He said he didnt look.

Good for him for admitting it then