CycleCraft - a discussion...

Tilt

brat wrote: »

If however the unlit cyclist was somewhere like Picadilly Circus at night time, a motorist wouldn't be excused from hitting them merely on the basis that they didn't see them because they were unlit.

The cyclist would still be breaking the law though. And what if they were over/undertaking a large vehicle? Wouldn't be immediately obvious with no lights on to a driver looking through a mirror from 40 feet away... especially if it's raining.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

The cyclist would still be breaking the law though. And what if they were over/undertaking a large vehicle? Wouldn't be immediately obvious with no lights on to a driver looking through a mirror from 40 feet away... especially if it's raining.

No-one is condoning riding without lights when required.

As we've all already said, there are circumstances where a motorist wouldn't be to blame for colliding with an unlit cyclist.

There are also many circumstances where the motorist would have questions to answer.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

No-one is condoning riding without lights when required.

As we've all already said, there are circumstances where a motorist wouldn't be to blame for colliding with an unlit cyclist.

There are also many circumstances where the motorist would have questions to answer.

'cursor hovers over the thanks button' :eek:

brat

Tilt wrote: »

'cursor hovers over the thanks button' :eek:

You would live to regret it!

esuhl

brat wrote: »

No-one is condoning riding without lights when required.

I wouldn't think about cycling on roads without lights in the daytime! My bike is covered with 3M reflective tape and I usually have a high-vis top and/or rucksack cover. Motorists need all the help they can get -- too often they just don't look where they're going.

brat

esuhl wrote: »

I wouldn't think about cycling on roads without lights in the daytime! My bike is covered with 3M reflective tape and I usually have a high-vis top and/or rucksack cover. Motorists need all the help they can get -- too often they just don't look where they're going.

I'm anal about adding any unnecessary weight to my road bike. But I do have good lights on it 24/7, and they're switched on every time I ride.

Like you say, it's important to do what you can to avoid being a statistic.

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

Yes but it was dark and I don't have any lights...;)

Exceptionally bright lights for under £30:

Front:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Solarstorm-6200Lm-X3-CREE-XML-U2-3-LED-Bicycle-Bike-HeadLight-Light-Flashlight-/271686242545?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&var=&hash=item3f41c310f1

Back:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RSP-Astrum-2-X-1-2-Watt-LED-Rear-Bike-Light-LAA918-/361234409079?

I always have a cheap secondary on the back in case one of them dies.

I have also attacked the bike with reflective orange 3M tape.

modsandmockers

Tilt wrote: »

So tonight .. I encounter 2 cyclists riding side-by-side. The one on the n/s has no lights on so who is legitimately riding in primary and secondary position and why? On the way back I pass a single cyclist on the same road without any lights on at all

Tobster86 wrote: »

They were clearly numpties. If I were cycling among them they'd have been shouted at to 'get some lights'

modsandmockers wrote: »

But who would you blame if you crashed into them? And how would you describe the incident on your insurance claim form?

Tobster - I think that your casual dismissal of the cyclists’ errant behaviour (numpties?) was not much different from other people’s casual dismissal of the motorist’s behaviour in your video on the other thread. And the idea of you shouting instructions to a nearby road user is very similar to the idea of the motorist giving you a blast on the horn because he/she thought you were unnecessarily hogging the lane.

And what if another cyclist had crashed into the unlit cyclists? How would the blame and the liabilities and the criminal responsibility get sorted out in that situation, given that it is almost certain that none of them would have insurance cover, and that there are very few traffic offences which a cyclist can be charged with?

My point is that a single overcrowded highway will never be simultaneously compatible with the different needs of two completely different forms of transport, each of which operates at different speeds and to a completely separate set of rules. It’s a bit like putting a football team against a rugby team on a single pitch.

Tobster86 wrote: »

A confession; I recently had to cycle about three miles from the centre of town whilst carrying a bag full of BMW 5-Series engine parts, and a large painting. I did the whole thing very slowly on the pavement, apologising to the 100 odd pedestrians, who were more interested in the artwork I was carrying. This came up in the news today:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312 which I think also calls for careful, discretionate sharing of the pavements where appropriate being legal

Your story reminds me of a motorbike trip I made in one of my many earlier lives. It was from Manchester to Kendal on the M6 with my pillion rider hanging on for dear life to a very large, heavy and expensive wall mirror. It never occurred to me to take to the hard shoulder - in those days, driving on the hard shoulder was as inconceivable as biking on the pavement.

The news story was featured on last night’s Radio4 PM programme, and there was a guy from the StopKillingCyclists campaign who seemed to seriously believe that there should be no disincentive at all for cyclists to ride on the pavement. He seemed to say that, until the roads can be made safe for cyclists, and since only one pedestrian has been killed in the last four years by a pavement-riding cyclist, it’s a no-brainer.

But as we all know, the roads are safe for cyclists - it’s just that they don’t feel that way. And until recently, pavements not only felt safe for pedestrians, they actually were safe. This situation is rapidly deteriorating.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

And the idea of you shouting instructions to a nearby road user is very similar to the idea of the motorist giving you a blast on the horn because he/she thought you were unnecessarily hogging the lane.

I'd argue that it isn't; as I still don't know what the horn blasting was about. He could have been trying to tell me I was too far out, that my rear light is too bright, that he simply believes cyclists shouldn't use the roads at all, or he might just really have it in for blokes with long hair and want a return to national service. I'll never actually know.

In contrast, shouting at a wayward knave that they need to get some lights, when they are so blatantly flouting the law and endangering their own safety, provides constructive advice in a tone that conveys the importance of the advice.

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

I'd argue that it isn't; as I still don't know what the horn blasting was about. He could have been trying to tell me I was too far out, that my rear light is too bright, that he simply believes cyclists shouldn't use the roads at all, or he might just really have it in for blokes with long hair and want a return to national service. I'll never actually know.

In contrast, shouting at a wayward knave that they need to get some lights, when they are so blatantly flouting the law and endangering their own safety, provides constructive advice in a tone that conveys the importance of the advice.

Numpty? Wayward Knave? Why would they not deserve the full YouTube treatment, complete with some kind of unique identifying feature, followed by a one-hour long paper chase at the police station?