Philip Pullman's "damn fools" rant about cyclists without lights or hi-vis; Dan Martin's Brexit ballache; Nine points and hefty fine for close pass shocker; Cyclist calls 30-second timeout on driver; Pelé-ton & Virgil van Bike + more on the live blog

BTBS does cos the ctc said so in 1930.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Re Philip Pullman's comments, I happened to be in Oxford last Wednesday for a gig and met up with my father who lives nearby for a couple of pints; walking around the closed streets near the Bodleian and round the back of the High on a damp misty evening it really was surprising how many cyclists were whipping through shared spaces at high speed and without lights, as well as using the pavement as an extension of the roadway even where the road was closed to cars. Being in company with an eighty-year-old with poor hearing who relies heavily on visuals made it a pretty stressful experience. We can argue endlessly about hi-vis, helmets, daylight lights etc, but surely nobody thinks it's OK to ride without lights at night, do they? Seriously?

Clearly some do....

I think that folk are concerned that the lights issue is used distract from negligent driving

While I have argued that an attentive driver will see cyclists with or without lights, and thats it's amazing how people who think cyclists without lights are invisible see enough of them to complain about it.

It is not OK to ride without lights at night, I guess sometimes people get caught out, and hadn't expected to be out until dark when they left home, and sometimes peoples batteries run out but then there are probably are those thinking they can get away wiht their short journey without buying lights.

wycombewheeler wrote:

 it's amazing how people who think cyclists without lights are invisible see enough of them to complain about it

It's a somewhat specious argument though, isn't it? You may see someone without lights but far later than you could have done, e.g. in the mornings I ride across the Clapham Road, a popular route into town; it's not uncommon to have to brake for a cyclist without lights who was to all intents and purposes invisible and then became visible as they came within the beam of a streetlamp or my own lights.

You have just reminded me of an encounter at traffic light controlled crossroads. I was waiting to turn left (I know, crazy, I didn't jump the red), as the light changed and I moved off, the next thing I know is a cyclist coming straight at me!

He was turning right into my road but overtook the cars and cut the corner by a huge margin.

No lights, dark clothes. I could not see him with the headlights of the cars in play.

So it is not just motorists who have to see cyclists.

I agree. I often see cars at night with no rear lights on (when I've managed to alert the drivers - including, once, the driver of a police van - they're oblivious that they only have daytime running lights on at the front). The fact that I have so far managed to see them doesn't make it sensible. On the other hand though, I have seen cyclists with cheap lights which, while they satisfy the legal requirement, don't do much at all for visibility.           

quiff wrote:

On the other hand though, I have seen cyclists with cheap lights which, while they satisfy the legal requirement, don't do much at all for visibility.           

Totally agree with that, the inadequacy of some lights is quite startling as is the fact that people are prepared to ride with them as their only protection – especially as £10-£15 on Amazon will get you a set of very adequate lights.

quiff wrote:

they're oblivious that they only have daytime running lights on at the front...

It's always baffled me (and those drivers too, I guess, there's plenty of them) as to why the regulations provide for cars to have DRLs front only. No surprise at all that many drivers assume that their lights are on front and rear, for since when was it ever possible to switch car lights on at one end only?

Agreed. My car predates DRLs, so I've only experienced them when I've had hire cars etc, but I was also struck that the dashboard in these seemed to be lit at all times (not sure if that's universal). If the instrument lights only came on with the side/headlights then maybe that would be another cue to drivers that they were not suitably lit.      

quiff wrote:

Agreed. My car predates DRLs, so I've only experienced them when I've had hire cars etc, but I was also struck that the dashboard in these seemed to be lit at all times (not sure if that's universal). If the instrument lights only came on with the side/headlights then maybe that would be another cue to drivers that they were not suitably lit.      

I swear I picked up a hire car in the states wherre the opposte was ture, the dashboard was illuminated more brightly when the lights were off.

So until I got out of the brightly lit car park and onto the unlit road, i thought the lights were on.

quiff wrote:

My car predates DRLs, so I've only experienced them when I've had hire cars etc, but I was also struck that the dashboard in these seemed to be lit at all times (not sure if that's universal).

My wife and I have both changed cars over the last 12 months. Both our current vehicles are over 10 years old (2007 and 2009 to be precise) and both have dashboard lights that are always on. They do still pre-date DRLs though. 

The issue for me is in low light, where you can't really see your headlights on the road in front of you. I am still getting used to the fact that the dashboard being lit up doesn't mean that the external lights are on. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

quiff wrote:

My car predates DRLs, so I've only experienced them when I've had hire cars etc, but I was also struck that the dashboard in these seemed to be lit at all times (not sure if that's universal).

My wife and I have both changed cars over the last 12 months. Both our current vehicles are over 10 years old (2007 and 2009 to be precise) and both have dashboard lights that are always on. They do still pre-date DRLs though. 

The issue for me is in low light, where you can't really see your headlights on the road in front of you. I am still getting used to the fact that the dashboard being lit up doesn't mean that the external lights are on. 

My 2005 jalopy (sometimes referred to as the Wanty Gobert team car before they got good) has instruments lit like Piccadilly Circus all the time, so I dimmed it. Hence when the headlights are on, the dash is dim, but when off
it's like looking into a low sun just before running someone over.

I just had to get used to it being the other way around from anything sensible.

DRLs are another stupidity. I think aimed at motorists who are unable to find the light switch in murky conditions, but leads to everything being lit and so nothing stands out. Like painting the entire world hi vis yellow, it appeals to people who have never heard of camouflage.

When it's foggy I get annoyed by cars without fog lights on or indeed with no lights on at all. If it's a bit misty how hard is it to switch on the purpose specific lights that you actually paid for. Yes it does ensure that you are seen earlier.
However, I don't have thousands of followers and even if I did I don't think stating it will make a difference.

And the flipside - those who use their fogs when it's not foggy. Usually only the front ones because it looks cool (nah, they're not fog lights mate, they're 'driving' lights - I confess, I was guilty of this in younger times) but there are some who manage to do the rear too. 

Rear ones are because 'it was a bit misty last week'.
'Oh, should I have turned it off at night now it is a cloudless evening?'

IanMK wrote:

When it's foggy I get annoyed by cars without fog lights on or indeed with no lights on at all. If it's a bit misty how hard is it to switch on the purpose specific lights that you actually paid for. Yes it does ensure that you are seen earlier. However, I don't have thousands of followers and even if I did I don't think stating it will make a difference.

Rule 236. You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights.

so not when 'it's a bit misty', although the reason for this has become a ,little obsolete with the advent of high level centre brake lights.

Rendel Harris wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

 it's amazing how people who think cyclists without lights are invisible see enough of them to complain about it

It's a somewhat specious argument though, isn't it? You may see someone without lights but far later than you could have done, e.g. in the mornings I ride across the Clapham Road, a popular route into town; it's not uncommon to have to brake for a cyclist without lights who was to all intents and purposes invisible and then became visible as they came within the beam of a streetlamp or my own lights.

And how would that be different for a pedestrian or even a dog? Both of which I'm sure you would equally want to avoid hitting in the dark.

As I say, use lights it's sensible and helpful to others, it can certainly reduce the chances of someone pulling out of a side road in front of you, and hopefully not get lost among the lights of other cars.

But lack of lights should not be a get out of jail free card for drivers, because they should be driving to be able to stop in the space they can see to be clear, and that does not mean "no lights, means there is nothing there"

wycombewheeler wrote:

And how would that be different for a pedestrian or even a dog? Both of which I'm sure you would equally want to avoid hitting in the dark.

Because pedestrians and dogs aren't generally mixing with motorised traffic in the middle of the road at 20mph plus?

andystow wrote:

Any information on how powerful the magnets on the Bontrager helmet are?

Will they make the wearer smarter?

Will they promote healing?

Will they block the 5G?

You'll need the foil upgrade for those features....

Captain Badger wrote:

andystow wrote:

Any information on how powerful the magnets on the Bontrager helmet are?

Will they make the wearer smarter?

Will they promote healing?

Will they block the 5G?

You'll need the foil upgrade for those features....

But it will allow mind control by Bill Gates out of the box.

mdavidford wrote:

.....

But it will allow mind control by Bill Gates out of the box.

Nah, that functionality is only enabled on download of the app jab2.0

Captain Badger wrote:

Nah, that functionality is only enabled on download of the app jab2.0

jab 2.0 is not compatible with older devices so you'll probably end up needing a new phone and GPS to get it to work properly.

And a monthly subscription to unlock the genuinely useful features.

andystow wrote:

Any information on how powerful the magnets on the Bontrager helmet are?

Will they make the wearer smarter?

Will they promote healing?

Will they block the 5G?

I think they aid blood flow by drawing dissolved iron to the top of the head

So the article says she has her own business, was driving an Audi and lives in a £700,000 apartment in Notting Hill and was fined less than half her declared weekly income. 

Sounds like she does have means of income apart from her parents.

And she couldn't afford a £100 fine but in the end it cost her £50 plus £84 court costs and she pleaded guilty too. 

DoomeFrog wrote:

So the article says she has her own business, was driving an Audi and lives in a £700,000 apartment in Notting Hill and was fined less than half her declared weekly income. 

Yeah, but the £50 fine might have caused her "cashflow problems", apparently (?).

DoomeFrog wrote:

So the article says she has her own business, was driving an Audi and lives in a £700,000 apartment in Notting Hill and was fined less than half her declared weekly income. 

Sounds like she does have means of income apart from her parents.

And she couldn't afford a £100 fine but in the end it cost her £50 plus £84 court costs and she pleaded guilty too. 

I wouldn't want to have any dealings with a business that might go bust over a £50 cashflow shortfall.