- This topic has 58 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
madcarew.
-
CreatorTopic
-
December 5, 2018 at 8:34 am #29181
freetime101
Ok so “nearly hit” is a bit of an overstatement, but now I have your attention….
Travelling to work by car this morning (I know, I know – but it was raining…), I was approaching a set of traffic lights (on green – my right of way), when a cyclist dressed all in black, on a black bike with not a light in sight ambled out across the road. I say ambled as he was in no hurry, despite the cars – this particular stretch of road is a 60 mph limit.
It was about 8:10 in the morning so not exactly daylight yet but he did have two small reflective patches on his shoulder….
Anyway, a tap of the brakes and the world kept turning. My point fellow readers – is a reminder that self preservation is the order of the day! Remember lights and reflectives on these murky mornings!
Oh, and regardless of who has legal right of way – remember Newtons third law, paraphrased; in a collision, the smaller object usually loses!
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
peted76
quote=Simon E]
Simon E wrote:
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.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?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.
Wow this thread got out of
Wow this thread got out of hand… I know I said it was abandonned but I feel the need to try and explain myself one last time:
I was simply trying to say “take responsibility for your own safety” with an annecdote to support why it would be a good idea.
Yes other road users SHOULD be alert and aware at all times, and be extra cautious around vunerable road users. BUT the daily close pass videos on here are just one of many pieces of evidence proving that this doesnt always happen. I was alert and aware, so nothing happened this time – but I’m not the only driver on the road, and as we well know, not all drivers are cyclists!
Obviously you are free to cycle wearing what you want – and I support this. One of the greatest things about cycling is how accessible it is and I don’t want to see compulsory rules around hi-viz, helmets, insurance etc ruin this great activity. BUT sometimes it’s good to look after your own safety rather than rant about how others dont.
This isn’t a lecture, I didn’t get up in your face, or chase you round – you had to activley take time out of your day to click the link, read the thread, then type your response.
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.
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.
Well done to the person trying to better the world by handing out lights to kids, but the person that honestly suggested I should have pulled the cyclist over and given him a cheap set of LED’s can go sit on a rusty spoke.
There’s been a real 50/50 split in attitudes on this thread and I just hope that the majority of those that read but didn’t comment fall into the better category!
You can type away with anger if you wish – I couldn’t care less. I’m off to ride a bike with lights and a hi-viz jacket – no pedal reflectors though…
ClubSmed
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.
Griff500
Simon E wrote:
Simon E wrote:
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.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?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?
Simon E
madcarew wrote:
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.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?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?
Eh?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.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?
Anonymous
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
Griff500 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.
Griff500 wrote:
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.FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:All it actually does in practice is imply an endorsement of the dangerous idea of collective-blame.
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.
I never have a problem seeing
I never have a problem seeing people or objects unlit and being able to avoid them at any time of day, it’s called obeying the law and the HC. Mater who is 68 was driving us both to the rugby earlier this year, we both saw three guys on bikes with no lights (a couple of tab ends IIRC) coming along a badly lit old industrial area road. Oh yeah, they were three abreast too … the horror!
Being aware of the extreme hazard you present to everyone else including other motorists is your first port of call when operating a killing machine, cossetted in your shell the mindset utterly changes for the vast majority. Everyone else should follow some set of rules you don’t follow yourself and other hugely more vulnerable road users including those on foot should have to follow the same rules as you in your killing machine and/or modify their behaviour for your convenience! This is what is wrong with the way our society and law makers see the order of things and thus why so many people are killed and seriously injured with barely a blink. Police are happy to blame victims despite the criminals not following the rules, it’s perverse.
I wonder how long it will take for those who have stabbed or shot someone blame their victim for not wearing a stab/bullet proof vest and police follow suit. Maybe if your daughter gets raped on the streets she’ll be at fault for no anti rpae device and wearing an ‘alluring’ outfit?
Telling people to get themselves lit up and take responsibility for safety is bullshit, despite the advent of hugely better lights, hi-vis asunder plus improved streetlights matters have not improved one iota. It’s always the vulnerable that are being asked to change their ways and not those that are doing the killing and maiming!
FluffyKittenofTindalos 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.
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.
Simon E wrote:
Nice idea, providing: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.– 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?
Simon E
peted76 wrote:
Nice idea, providing: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.– 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?
peted76
Simon E wrote:
Who needs the advice? The errant individual he encountered, not people reading road.cc.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.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).
hawkinspeter
Simon E wrote:
Who needs the advice? The errant individual he encountered, not people reading road.cc.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.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).
That’s why we need to find this errant cyclist. Unfortunately, no-one’s telling us where this happened.
Also, don’t forget about the physicists that need reminding about Newton’s Third Law – they get so bogged down with relativity/quantum mechanics that they forget about the much easier to use approximations. Though why that is here on a cycling forum is puzzling.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.