We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Suicidal Cyclist
Comments
-
Read rule 59 and 66 of the highway code....
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/you-and-your-bicycle
Olias0 -
59 & 66 are both should not must
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Yes, the highway code does offer advice that we should wear bright clothing. But, as most motorcycle clothing is black and many cars are black, it's not advice that a motorist could depend on if they were looking to mitigate their inattention in a collision.No it isn't, not entirely anyway. As I said, the onus is on ALL road users to ensure they are visible and that includes idiot drivers who don't know when they should have their dipped head lights on.
My mate wears all black usually, all hours of the day, and he is (in my view) one of the most noticeable cyclists around.
Here's two pics. PIC1. PIC2. I'm in the light blue top and another friend is in darker clothing. Arguably he's more visible than I am.
Each person has a responsibility to protect others and to protects themselves. The responsibility for drivers to see cyclists is total. It can't be deferred on anyone else. Likewise it is the total responsibility of cyclists to see and avoid cars and pedestrians. They mustn't miss them. A cyclist wearing dark clothing in daylight is not going to provide a motorist with a reason to avoid a careless/dangerous driving charge by claiming he didn't see the cyclist.You cannot say that the responsibility solely lies with drivers to watch out for cyclists... cyclists also have a responsibility to ensure that they make every effort to make sure they are visible night-time or day-time.My 10 year old son has just started riding a horse on the road with a riding school. They issue each rider with a high viz vest. That is them taking responsibility for the safety of the riders which is their duty, no one else's.
I do the same when taking school kids on their cycling course. I wear hi-vis myself too on those occasions.
Most performance/technical cycle clothing has detail that strongly assists vision, eg I have a dark blue top that has light and reflective detail and a white band around the arm. The white band stands out really strongly around the dark blue.
Because I like the idea of affording myself the best personal protection and because I hate the idea of wearing industrial, functional hi-vis fluorescent yellow, preferring good quality technical clothing, I always have my trusty knog blinder flashing behind me.
But as long as clothing choice is not limited to yellow tabards and large retro reflective strips, the motorist has to accept that they have an absolute duty to avoid any legal hazard on the road (and any illegal hazard that they could reasonably be expected to avoid). That includes avoiding the dark clothed rider in daylight in the same way as it includes avoiding the parked black car at the roadside.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
59 & 66 are both should not must
So whats your point? That you only ever do things to aid safety if you are forced, not when its optional?
The highway code has developed over years of research and access to statistics like accidents etc etc etc. You can ride (or drive) within the specific letter of the law, but still be deemed reckless or not paying due care and attention if your actions are deemed to have caused an accident.
Olias0 -
So whats your point? That you only ever do things to aid safety if you are forced, not when its optional?
The highway code has developed over years of research and access to statistics like accidents etc etc etc. You can ride (or drive) within the specific letter of the law, but still be deemed reckless or not paying due care and attention if your actions are deemed to have caused an accident.
Olias
My point is the one several people on here have made - the more you demand cyclists do to make car drivers see them, the more you can blame a legal cyclist for an accident or provide mitigation for drivers not paying attention. I would love for there to be no accidents but if a cyclist is hit by a car, the driver should never be let off any prosecution because the cyclist is blamed for not being noticed. If there isn't a MUST in the instructions then you cannot blame a cyclist for not wearing them aftet an accident just because you were not being observant.
The one accident and one near-hit I have had on my bike, both were in broad daylight, first I was wearing a coloured blue top and black/white shorts, second a white/red bike and black/white top with reflective detail - both were due to driver not looking properly and to suggest I would be in any way to blame because I wasn't doing something which isn't required in the HC is just nonsense.
You could extend your first point to drivers on phones or who want to not wear a seatbelt or who drink and drive - a great many drivers would do those if it wasn't enforced by the police.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Pity that where councils have spent a small fortune on providing cycle lanes , cyclists are not obliged to use them . There is a nice cycle path cut out of farm land from Rye tolLydd, where do the cyclists ride? On the road of course, I just don't understand the logic.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
peter_the_piper wrote: »Pity that where councils have spent a small fortune on providing cycle lanes , cyclists are not obliged to use them . There is a nice cycle path cut out of farm land from Rye tolLydd, where do the cyclists ride? On the road of course, I just don't understand the logic.
Are you a cyclist? Do you use the cycle lane?
I never use cycle lanes - too slow for my riding style.
I pay my taxes and use the road - It'll be a sad day when councils can ban people from using what they pay for.
I except that motorways have prohibitions for horses, pedestrians and cyclists, but thats a different story.
Most cycle lanes (in Scotland at any rate) seem to be shared with buses and that alone keeps me out of them.0 -
BINGO!
Another anti-cyclist thread with all the usual misguided arguments:
- Road Tax... oh please, not again.
- they cycle too slow/too fast/get in the way.
- they cycle more than one abreast/lots following each other/they
exist
- cyclists don't understand the motorist's position (most cyclists
drive as well.
- work harder, get a car - (there's always one juvenile.)
- they have too many/not enough lights/don't wear gear for the
inattentive to see.
- they don't use cycle paths (find out why, it's been repeated often
enough).
- lycra = agressive
- helmet cams =agressive
As I say..I've got a full card..0 -
Highways are free to use for all regardless of what taxes are paid.I pay my taxes and use the road - It'll be a sad day when councils can ban people from using what they pay for.0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »Highways are free to use for all regardless of what taxes are paid.
Nice theory but only motorists get done for having an untaxed vehicle on the highway.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards