glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Who Has The Right Of Way?
- Thread starter Smithy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Tin Pot
Guru
FTFY
Apollonius
Guru
- Location
- South Staffordshire
Article on BBC Breakfast this morning saying that 200 horses have been hit and 40 riders killed in the last 5 years, I think it was. Big hairy things. Quite visible.
jefmcg
Guru
That's a terrifying number. Why are more and more people turning away from MDMA and trying something as dangerous as horse riding?
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
An estimated 1 in 8 of the 46% motorists who have legally-required glasses or lenses are driving without them. 1 in 3 of the remainder haven't had an eye test for more than 2 years, so might also be incapable of seeing well enough to drive legally. Source: http://www.specsavers.co.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/driving_eyesight_poster_bookle
There's a heck of a lot of complacency about driving blind
Apollonius
Guru
- Location
- South Staffordshire
I can understand that. If you live, as I do, in a village 7 miles form the nearest town, a person whose sight is fading would be pretty well cut off if they couldn't drive. Cuts mean that there is little or no public transport. People do really depend on their cars. Fortunately most of these people are old and drive very cautiously. Maybe, like "dangerous roads" they are ironically safer. The real danger comes from people who drive around feeling they own the roads and everyone else must get out of the way or illuminate themselves at all times. Cl*rks*ns!
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Firstly, there's always cycling if their sight's still good enough (I live 4 and a bit miles from the nearest town).
Secondly, I wasn't referring to the relatively small number of motorists whose sight is fading, but millions who would be legal to drive but aren't simply because they choose not to wear their glasses/lenses or not to visit an optician - they are choosing to be incompetent and I don't understand why so many people seem OK with this, from the public up to government ministers who say we can't possibly make the poor oppressed motorist pay for regular optician visits that they presumably should be getting anyway for the good of their health!</rant>
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
To get this thread back onto to cyclists avoiding runners on the road (the sight issue was the OP's quality of vision, not motorists'):
You are required by law sunset-sunrise to use/show lights. Any sensible person would have a decent front light if they are habitually cycling 3.30-5.30: this ensures the runner sees you and will allow you to manoeuvre out safely round the runner. I suggest that the last thing you want is for him/her to move out at probably a late moment: that confused expectation would be a recipe for collision.
But any sensible person running on an unlit road at that time in the pre-dawn morning carries a light or at least a reflector and wears clothing of a colour (probably with reflective bits on legs and shoes) to increase their visibility (cf ninja black clad cyclists). The sensible runner (day or night) will always run on the right (ie facing the oncoming traffic) except when approaching a right hand corner when it is safe and good practice to cross over before the corner to the outside of the bend and then cross back again. The runner cannot know/detect what's coming round the corner, hugging the kerb. But I acknowledge that some runners don't know to do this or choose not to mitigate this risk.
You imply there may be a pavement on which he is not running. The likely reason for this is that pavements are uneven so in the dark the more uniform surface of the mostly empty road is much more attractive and safer (the main risk is stumbling, not unseeing cyclists). Compare this issue with that of the 'quality of cycle paths/tracks' issue - there are similar considerations. Most runners will hop onto the pavement when they see a cyclist coming (and indeed when in the headlights of an oncoming car) but neither the cyclist nor the motorist should expect them to and it's so easy to just move out a couple of metres.
You are required by law sunset-sunrise to use/show lights. Any sensible person would have a decent front light if they are habitually cycling 3.30-5.30: this ensures the runner sees you and will allow you to manoeuvre out safely round the runner. I suggest that the last thing you want is for him/her to move out at probably a late moment: that confused expectation would be a recipe for collision.
But any sensible person running on an unlit road at that time in the pre-dawn morning carries a light or at least a reflector and wears clothing of a colour (probably with reflective bits on legs and shoes) to increase their visibility (cf ninja black clad cyclists). The sensible runner (day or night) will always run on the right (ie facing the oncoming traffic) except when approaching a right hand corner when it is safe and good practice to cross over before the corner to the outside of the bend and then cross back again. The runner cannot know/detect what's coming round the corner, hugging the kerb. But I acknowledge that some runners don't know to do this or choose not to mitigate this risk.
You imply there may be a pavement on which he is not running. The likely reason for this is that pavements are uneven so in the dark the more uniform surface of the mostly empty road is much more attractive and safer (the main risk is stumbling, not unseeing cyclists). Compare this issue with that of the 'quality of cycle paths/tracks' issue - there are similar considerations. Most runners will hop onto the pavement when they see a cyclist coming (and indeed when in the headlights of an oncoming car) but neither the cyclist nor the motorist should expect them to and it's so easy to just move out a couple of metres.
shouldbeinbed
Rollin' along
- Location
- Manchester way
get real, last minute avoidance manoeuvres at 3.30am are entirely avoidable with the right kit and a bit of shared common sense. falling off or crashing or being crashed into can hurt and badly so, that is not scaremongering it is fact.
- Location
- Manchester
No, I don't mean Hi Vis.
However, the runner should at least be wearing light rather than dark coloured clothing.
However, the runner should at least be wearing light rather than dark coloured clothing.
gbb
Squire
- Location
- Peterborough
Its about making the right decision.
In a similar case some years ago i found myself in the cycle lane, dark, on a bend with heavy rush hour traffic. Suddenly i have an oncoming jogger in the cycle lane. I have a few seconds to make a choice and we both made the wrong one.
He held his ground, despite seeing me, the traffic i had to filter into and despite there being a 6ft wide path right next to the cyclelane he could have just hopped up onto.
I tried to get round which meant filtering into heavy traffic.
This cause me some consternation as well as danger to myself given the lack of decent gaps in the cars.
What i should have done for my own safety was just stopped in the cycle lane (assuming it was safe to do so) and forced him to make a decision. Given the cycle lane is only about 3ft wide he can stop (safe choice), hop onto the path (safe choice) or pass between me and the traffic (unwise choice)
That way the onus is on the runner to make a decision, and you're safer.
Its not black and white. You both have a right to be there. No-one has a right to just expect the other to endanger themselves.
We don't always make the right decisions. Sometimes both parties make the wrong decision at the same time.
In a similar case some years ago i found myself in the cycle lane, dark, on a bend with heavy rush hour traffic. Suddenly i have an oncoming jogger in the cycle lane. I have a few seconds to make a choice and we both made the wrong one.
He held his ground, despite seeing me, the traffic i had to filter into and despite there being a 6ft wide path right next to the cyclelane he could have just hopped up onto.
I tried to get round which meant filtering into heavy traffic.
This cause me some consternation as well as danger to myself given the lack of decent gaps in the cars.
What i should have done for my own safety was just stopped in the cycle lane (assuming it was safe to do so) and forced him to make a decision. Given the cycle lane is only about 3ft wide he can stop (safe choice), hop onto the path (safe choice) or pass between me and the traffic (unwise choice)
That way the onus is on the runner to make a decision, and you're safer.
Its not black and white. You both have a right to be there. No-one has a right to just expect the other to endanger themselves.
We don't always make the right decisions. Sometimes both parties make the wrong decision at the same time.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I dont know why we are talking priority when we should be talking common sense.
I had this problem with a dog walker in the Winter. Pitch black road, black dog and black clothes. I stopped and had a chat and gave her a spare frog light. The frog light is now on the dog collar and she wears a relective vis vest.
If you stop and tell the runner that he is difficult to see, you may be telling him something he doesnt know.
I had this problem with a dog walker in the Winter. Pitch black road, black dog and black clothes. I stopped and had a chat and gave her a spare frog light. The frog light is now on the dog collar and she wears a relective vis vest.
If you stop and tell the runner that he is difficult to see, you may be telling him something he doesnt know.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Congratulations on scaring an innocent dog walker and making the world slightly uglier.
Soon we'll be at http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/12/...council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green/
