Nearly hit a cyclist this morning!

Simon E wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

The pitchforks are out today!  Maybe I’m easily taken for a ride (so to speak) but I got the impression that our OP friend was actually a cyclist who on this particular occasion happened to be driving, and was offering friendly advice.

Who needs the advice? The errant individual he encountered, not people reading road.cc.

Pointless posts like the OP's promote the erroneous idea that people who sometimes cycle are a homogenous collective (we are not) and we all need reminding about these things (we don't).

I disagree, the OP raises an issue. Yes it's an obvious issue and one which regular readers of this site most likely will not need reminding of. 

However I believe it is worthy of a post and or a discussion. If only to open this up from us, to other non road.cc readers by proxy.

I too almost hit a cyclist the other day to my horror! It was dark, raining and the cyclist was a yoof on the road with no lights, dressed in dark (black?) clothes with his hood up. My immediate thought was that I'd have hardly noticed if he'd bounced off my front off-side wing, but it'd could have been life threatening for him. 

It's not just me a bit shaken by it, happens all too often and people get hurt. It's an issue, which we in a local cycling club are trying to address, we're currently in the process of sourcing some of those cheap front and rear led light sets offa China. We are hoping we can get them in bulk for less than a quid each a set, the idea is that we'll buy a load with our club 'dues' and contact some local secondary schools, with the police, to hand them out to kids who cycle. 

It won't stop the issue, but it should get some people thinking and it might just stop an accident happening. (The police near us did something similar a couple/few years ago).

peted76 wrote:

we're currently in the process of sourcing some of those cheap front and rear led light sets offa China. We are hoping we can get them in bulk for less than a quid each a set, the idea is that we'll buy a load with our club 'dues' and contact some local secondary schools, with the police, to hand them out to kids who cycle.

Nice idea, providing:

- that they are better than the ones my daughter won in a council-run cycle quiz at secondary school, which were not fit for purpose.

- someone fits them to the bikes if present at school.

- an accompanying note for parents makes it clear that batteries have a finite life and need checking & replacing.

I'd be inclined to fit some spoke reflectors (the 3M pipe cleaner ones) too. Zero maintenance and unlikely to be lost or damaged.

If you're going to all that effort could you get the schools to promote riding to school / active travel and offer incentives?

Simon E wrote:

peted76 wrote:

we're currently in the process of sourcing some of those cheap front and rear led light sets offa China. We are hoping we can get them in bulk for less than a quid each a set, the idea is that we'll buy a load with our club 'dues' and contact some local secondary schools, with the police, to hand them out to kids who cycle.

Nice idea, providing:

- that they are better than the ones my daughter won in a council-run cycle quiz at secondary school, which were not fit for purpose.

- someone fits them to the bikes if present at school.

- an accompanying note for parents makes it clear that batteries have a finite life and need checking & replacing.

I'd be inclined to fit some spoke reflectors (the 3M pipe cleaner ones) too. Zero maintenance and unlikely to be lost or damaged.

If you're going to all that effort could you get the schools to promote riding to school / active travel and offer incentives?

It's pretty easy to argue that that's precisely what they are doing.  How is it you don't want a dickhead in dark clothing, unlit in poor visibility to do any more to help themselves and those around them, but you have a raft of suggestions to improve the activity of those  who are actually getting out and selflessly contributing to their community and trying to improve our lot as cyclists?

madcarew wrote:

How is it you don't want a dickhead in dark clothing, unlit in poor visibility to do any more to help themselves and those around them, but you have a raft of suggestions to improve the activity of those  who are actually getting out and selflessly contributing to their community and trying to improve our lot as cyclists?

I'm puzzled. You and I probably don't have any opportunity to assist either of the 'dickheads' you or the OP encountered. It looks like you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't appreciate that.

You are doing something constructive, which sounds great. But if you simply hand out sh*t lights to (possibly clueless) kids will that really achieve what you're hoping for? How do you know they'll even be fitted to the bikes?

Griff500 wrote:

Why would you think collective blame to be a dangerous idea? If you study accident analyses either by insurance companies, or by coroners, you will find that the majority of accidents have a primary cause and contributory causes. Perhaps the best example is that of young drivers who in addition to having a higher rate of primary fault accidents, are also involved in a higher rate of non fault accidents. In other words, the 80 year old partially sighted blithering idiot was the primary cause, but the young driver he hit put himself in a more dangerous position than a more experienced driver would have, who evidence suggests is better placed to anticipate the risk. What you suggest is that only the singular responsibility is of significance, and that we should ignore any notion of contributory factors. What you suggest in fact goes against all safety risk mitigation advice and methodology.

Eh?

I'd be grateful if you could please explain in 'Sun reader' level English (i.e. simple) how the above paragraph relates to this topic & Fluffy's comment?

Simon E wrote:

madcarew wrote:

How is it you don't want a dickhead in dark clothing, unlit in poor visibility to do any more to help themselves and those around them, but you have a raft of suggestions to improve the activity of those  who are actually getting out and selflessly contributing to their community and trying to improve our lot as cyclists?

I'm puzzled. You and I probably don't have any opportunity to assist either of the 'dickheads' you or the OP encountered. It looks like you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't appreciate that.

You are doing something constructive, which sounds great. But if you simply hand out sh*t lights to (possibly clueless) kids will that really achieve what you're hoping for? How do you know they'll even be fitted to the bikes?

Where did the OP say it was a kid? Aren't you putting words in the Ops mouth? The OP was travelling to work. Aren't hoody clad junky kids in bed at 8am?

Griff500 wrote:

Where did the OP say it was a kid? Aren't you putting words in the Ops mouth? The OP was travelling to work. Aren't hoody clad junky kids in bed at 8am?

If you read the posts properly you would see that I was replying to madcarew about efforts to get some lights to schoolkids. I don't think anyone said that the OP encountered a child.

Are you going to explain your previous post so others can comprehend what you meant?

Freetime101 wrote:

I was simply trying to say "take responsibility for your own safety" with an annecdote to support why it would be a good idea.

But we all are extremely aware of this already! You're addressing totally the wrong audience and wondering why we're not entirely receptive. If you like doing that then maybe you have a future in the stand-up comedy circuit.

Freetime101 wrote:

This isn't a lecture

It certainly feels like one!

Freetime101 wrote:

And as for quoting lines of highway code, unless you are wearing a helmet, light-coloured or flourescent clothing with reflective accessories (rule 59), have pedal reflectors and a red rear reflector (rule 60), you can pipe down.

No. This is not a school and you're definitely not the teacher. I can't seem to find an 'up yours' emoticon. Pity.

Freetime101 wrote:

In fact whilst the HC is out, rule 66 states that you should be considerate of other road users. This is obviously a broad statement, but I would argue that making yourself seen would fall under this.

Blindingly obvious statement of the week there.

We're not the errant cyclist you encountered just like you're not the tw@t in a van tailgating me this morning (or the BMW doing the same yesterday morning) and neither were you the driver that overtook me into oncoming traffic so I won't lecture you about those things. Everyone has a responsibility to others but my point was that anyone driving a motorised vehicle has a greater responsibility to more vulnerable road users.

Simon E wrote:

madcarew wrote:

How is it you don't want a dickhead in dark clothing, unlit in poor visibility to do any more to help themselves and those around them, but you have a raft of suggestions to improve the activity of those  who are actually getting out and selflessly contributing to their community and trying to improve our lot as cyclists?

I'm puzzled. You and I probably don't have any opportunity to assist either of the 'dickheads' you or the OP encountered. It looks like you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't appreciate that.

You are doing something constructive, which sounds great. But if you simply hand out sh*t lights to (possibly clueless) kids will that really achieve what you're hoping for? How do you know they'll even be fitted to the bikes?

 

There's no expectation that we'd be handing out quality lights to last a lifetime or indeed that 100% of these lights will be used, or indeed welcomed. It's a drop in the ocean of cycling safety. 

The alternative is to do nothing.

Simon E wrote:

Who needs the advice? The errant individual he encountered, not people reading road.cc.

Pointless posts like the OP's promote the erroneous idea that people who sometimes cycle are a homogenous collective (we are not) and we all need reminding about these things (we don't).

I agree with this sentiment, and none of the posts defending the OP really address the point.

If the OP had stopped the actual cyclist that he was concerned about, and discussed lighting options with them or offered them a cheap LED light or something, fair enough (probably wouldn't have gone well, but it would have been a justifiable thing to attempt).

  But posting it here just comes across as patronising (did I ask for the OP's advice?).

It's also deliberately directing the lecture at cyclists who almost certainly already use lights, I'm guessing because they are less likely to react to being lectured with physical aggression than is some random hoodie youth on the street!

All it actually does in practice is imply an endorsement of the dangerous idea of collective-blame.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

All it actually does in practice is imply an endorsement of the dangerous idea of collective-blame.

Why would you think collective blame to be a dangerous idea? If you study accident analyses either by insurance companies, or by coroners, you will find that the majority of accidents have a primary cause and contributory causes. Perhaps the best example is that of young drivers who in addition to having a higher rate of primary fault accidents, are also involved in a higher rate of non fault accidents. In other words, the 80 year old partially sighted blithering idiot was the primary cause, but the young driver he hit put himself in a more dangerous position than a more experienced driver would have, who evidence suggests is better placed to anticipate the risk. What you suggest is that only the singular responsibility is of significance, and that we should ignore any notion of contributory factors. What you suggest in fact goes against all safety risk mitigation advice and methodology.

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

All it actually does in practice is imply an endorsement of the dangerous idea of collective-blame.

Why would you think collective blame to be a dangerous idea? If you study accident analyses either by insurance companies, or by coroners, you will find that the majority of accidents have a primary cause and contributory causes. Perhaps the best example is that of young drivers who in addition to having a higher rate of primary fault accidents, are also involved in a higher rate of non fault accidents. In other words, the 80 year old partially sighted blithering idiot was the primary cause, but the young driver he hit put himself in a more dangerous position than a more experienced driver would have, who evidence suggests is better placed to anticipate the risk. What you suggest is that only the singular responsibility is of significance, and that we should ignore any notion of contributory factors. What you suggest in fact goes against all safety risk mitigation advice and methodology.

I don't understand your argument.  I objected to collective blame and you respond by talking about 'contributary negligance'.  Those aren't even the same concept!

Cyclists are not an organised group.  There is no membership criteria and no internal cyclist police force to enfore the rules. 

I have no responsibility for any random person who happens to get on a bike, just because I also sometimes get on a bike.  The idea that I have such a responsibility is a fiction that serves as a pretext for bad drivers to disregard my safety.   I'd rather people didn't reinforce that fictional belief becuase it encourages those bad drivers and so increases the risks I face (both cycling and walking).

Also, when applied to 'mitigating' risk created by other people's behaviour, "mitigation advice"  is not some neutral or scientific 'methodology', it's a very political stance that people can disagree with.

Griff500 wrote:

....

Also, my main reason for thinking cyclists _should_ have lights is so I can see them coming (and they can see me) in my capacity as a pedestrian.  I feel they owe me that, just as motorists owe cyclists and pedestrians the basic care of looking where they are going and not driving too fast.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

....

 

Also, my main reason for thinking cyclists _should_ have lights is so I can see them coming (and they can see me) in my capacity as a pedestrian.  I feel they owe me that, just as motorists owe cyclists and pedestrians the basic care of looking where they are going and not driving too fast.

Given that pedestrians are according to government reports 50% more at fault for their deaths when in collision with people on bikes, I think we need to ensure pedestrians have lights too so that people on bikes can see them coing, they ow me that.

You are saying that pedestrians are more vulnerable, indeed cause less harm than people on bikes, that's factually not true. So if we are to say one group needs lights, hi-vis etc despite them being less at fault for deaths of the supposed most vulnerable, then we absolutely must enforce that on all others including the supposed more vulnerable, who actually aren't group too right?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Simon E wrote:

Who needs the advice? The errant individual he encountered, not people reading road.cc.

Pointless posts like the OP's promote the erroneous idea that people who sometimes cycle are a homogenous collective (we are not) and we all need reminding about these things (we don't).

 

I agree with this sentiment, and none of the posts defending the OP really address the point.

 

If the OP had stopped the actual cyclist that he was concerned about, and discussed lighting options with them or offered them a cheap LED light or something, fair enough (probably wouldn't have gone well, but it would have been a justifiable thing to attempt).

 

  But posting it here just comes across as patronising (did I ask for the OP's advice?).

 

It's also deliberately directing the lecture at cyclists who almost certainly already use lights, I'm guessing because they are less likely to react to being lectured with physical aggression than is some random hoodie youth on the street!

 

All it actually does in practice is imply an endorsement of the dangerous idea of collective-blame.

The same could be said about any of the rants on this forum, or indeed website. Do we really need to educate the readers of Road.CC about how to pass a bike leaving enough room when driving a car?

This site is for a shared interest group and as such does become an exho chamber or sounding board at times. Any other shared interest group site does the same thing and I do not see it as a huge issue.

Freetime101 wrote:

I think perhaps my point has been missed... nevermind...

I had no difficulty in dealing with this mornings scenario, but it's a situation that as a cyclist I would try and avoid where possbile. I'm not the only driver on the road and there are many stories out there of cyclists coming off worse on the road and I'd rather not add to it, from either side.

Another road user caused you to use your car's brakes. I can't work out what you want us to say or do. There is surely no-one here who ambles across a 60mph road without looking or does not use lights when they feel appropriate, even well beyond the times indicated by the HC (mine were in use until 8:30 this morning and I'm no fan of daytime lights).

Do you post this kind of thing on car forums every time someone pulls out on you, overtakes on double white lines, tailgates you, goes through a light as it changes to red etc etc etc?

Thought not.

If you're just venting then you'd be better off writing to the letters pages of your local newspaper, they love that kind of thing, or Twitter.

Freetime101 wrote:

I think perhaps my point has been missed... nevermind...

I had no difficulty in dealing with this mornings scenario, but it's a situation that as a cyclist I would try and avoid where possbile. I'm not the only driver on the road and there are many stories out there of cyclists coming off worse on the road and I'd rather not add to it, from either side.

I think your point was well made, the only mistake you made was suggesting on this site that a cyclist did something wrong. You should know by now that this is against the site rules.  

Freetime101 wrote:

 

Nothing really, wear what you want and cycle where you want, bro  

The only point to my story is a friendly reminder that in the interests of self preservation - be safe be seen!

You saw him/her, so much so you had time to check out their bike and attire and adjust your seed accordingly.

So... what was the point again?

alansmurphy wrote:

Freetime101 wrote:

 

Nothing really, wear what you want and cycle where you want, bro  

The only point to my story is a friendly reminder that in the interests of self preservation - be safe be seen!

 

You saw him/her, so much so you had time to check out their bike and attire and adjust your seed accordingly.

 

So... what was the point again?

Eye bleach, please????

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Freetime101 wrote:

 

Nothing really, wear what you want and cycle where you want, bro  

The only point to my story is a friendly reminder that in the interests of self preservation - be safe be seen!

 

You saw him/her, so much so you had time to check out their bike and attire and adjust your seed accordingly.

 

So... what was the point again?

Eye bleach, please????

I was looking to start a helmet debate!

alansmurphy wrote:

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Freetime101 wrote:

 

Nothing really, wear what you want and cycle where you want, bro  

The only point to my story is a friendly reminder that in the interests of self preservation - be safe be seen!

 

You saw him/her, so much so you had time to check out their bike and attire and adjust your seed accordingly.

 

So... what was the point again?

Eye bleach, please????

 

I was looking to start a helmet debate!

 

No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Fingers in ears! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! That's not working. No! No! No! No! Fingers in eyes!

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Sunrise was at 07:48 this morning.

Sunrise *where I am in Britain* today, (two days later) was 0846  I'm betting two days ago it wasn't 0748, but you know "cool story bro".