Safe Speed Forums

Absolutely not!

We are all responsible for our own safety. You cannot rely on other people for your own safety.

Cyclists should be responsible and try to make themselves as visible as possible.

Same as (most) motorcyclists do.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You don't think a breeze block in the middle of the road counts as exceptional? Is this an argument for all road vehicles not to have any rear/side lights as they do not need to be visible to others, it being the sole responsibility of other drivers to see them?

To paraphrase your last sentence, the cyclist is responsible for his/her riding and the consequences of it and should act accordingly. This must include lights at night and reasonable safety measures.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

This is complete and utter b0llocks!

I almost wiped out a cyclist the other morning. He was in dark clothing with no reflective items whatsoever. I only just saw him in time!

It was pure chance and my observation that saved his life. had the road been slightly busier I may have been attracted to another potential hazard and we'd now be talking about an ex cyclist!

There should be a mechanism for punishing these dangerous miscreants

Why does it always have to 100% one party's fault? In the real world it rarely is.

In the case of a car hitting a bike with no lights, the car driver of course should be driving at a speed where he can stop, but the cyclist should equally make reasonable efforts to make him or herself as visible as possible.

Or like the bloke I came across the other morning cycling along an unlit NSL D/C with no lights on. Luckily for him he was wearing a high-viz vest, but had it been properly dark rather than twilight he would have been uncomfortably close before I saw him. Ditto on had the traffic been heavier. If there had been something passing me at the time....

Don't get me started on the fact that there is a lit, well maintained cycle path just off the road (and for the C+ lurkers, he wasn't travelling much over 10 - 15mph, certainly not what I would consider a 'fast' cyclist).

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

CTC on these issues come across a bunch of deranged idiots. I prefer to listen to RoSPA on this topic. I am not going to post a link BC - you are supposedly savvy enough to check for yourself

Most on certain cycling sites post up a lot of excement about this as well.

The point is that in your normal environment - you know the trees are there und they trees und the hedges are not in the middle of the carriageway.

Parked cars .. well - we have a number of different colours. Some parked under street lights.. metal gleam in dipped headlamps und two very large reflectors as well on each side of it. Ist wider und bulkier too. Few drivers leave cars parked up on dark twisty roads in any case.

On dark road - black ist not fashionable.. ist lethal.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know this was way back in the 40s or 50s, so there's hardly likely to be a load of stuff 'on these issues' on the web, is there. I think my post is quite clear, (apart from the typo of 'carts' instead of 'cars' )

Right - let's get one thing straight.

My lads and lasses up here (and myself when more junior) have always issued fines to cyclists who fail to use lights in much the same way as we offer zewro discretion to drivers who fail to switch on lights or wear seat belts. We do apply discretion to some offences .. but there are some which we cannot and will not. (Apples to pavement cycling and any driving, riding or cycling the wrong way along a one-way .. ignoring "No Entry" signs and red light jumping by all - apart from pedestrians though if Swiss or German law applied - no doubt we would fine if we copped 'em


I never really recovered from the ticking off I got when age 14 in Switzerland when visiting the Swiss guys. The wording of the reprimand.. I have a "reputation for acid" - but that Swiss policeman's "acid would dissolve a Dalek/Cyberman or Alien on contact". I never forgot it.. and I still recall it with shudders. The Swiss guys got into trouble with their parents over it all "for not looking after me as a guest of theirs" as well. BC - your mates over on C+ completely misunderstand Andreas and his chums and the Yorkshire Swiss Felines. I would like all references to them on your other playgorund to cease on the basis that it does not achieve much and rather makes the person(s) making these comments look very foolish. Ad hominem attack does not win support in any case - and most of us drive cars, ride bikes - but 100% of us walk! I walk for pleasure as well as ride and drive for pleasure. I think I am fairly normal here. I may mock and tease - but I do not do hate or spite - nor does anyone on this site. I had the odd tiff with "Mr Angry" but I accept he was "angry" and wanted to vent his feelings. I can take that and will try to help that type over their anger. I try to heal rifts of "us and them" if I can I must say the Hamster Hammond really did much to help heal rifts. A kindred spirit and I respect that guy. He comes across as naturally pleasant as does James May. Clarkson I think he just likes to shock - and I admit to belly laughs at his take on life!

Wildy is surprisingly innocent and plain loveable (Am biased as her cousin perhaps - and speak with my heart and not my head -

but both Wildy and he sister - Krissi - are really beautiful women inside and outside. All who meet them come to that conclusion - including my former guv who danced the tango with Wildy at his retirement do ) . But she hails from a country in which you would see - if you live there and did not spend perhaps the odd holiday there - cyclists in yellow and orange hi-viz capes as it does know how to rain and snow in that country.

You also have to remember that Ted, Wildy and Mike and Kriss do live in rural areas. No street lights - so a cyclist who has no lights would be a problem. Speaking as someone who does ride a bike rather a lot ... if the area is pitch black - as in a rural environment - you would have problems keeping to the tarmac.

In town.. even with street lamps.. shadows can render someone in black as "invisible"./ Why a fluorescent strip can be a life saver. I know Kriss has a vest which she converted from an old black cocktail dress in that material which "sparkles!" in the light. Very effective really as it is a jet black if there is no light. I htink this was the base of a post she made on C+ two years ago and for which about a dozen registered on this site to complain to me and Ted over her I will say Krissi is her own woman with her own ideas and if anyone tried to "control her" -

I have faced thugs with guns and knives. I felt no fear. But I do not dare upset Krissi One strong woman and for all that - likeable. I think despite the pettiness - C+ regulars must have respected her - else why do they keep on talking about her - albeit negatively

Me as a BiB? I enforce the law with as much professional jugdement as I can realistically render according to circumstance. But lighting is one thing which my lads and lasses would consider "absolute" and will be draconian as far as cyclists are concerned and very just according to the drivers who do come out with the immortal question of "why don't you cop real criminals when we do them for lack of seatbelts, faulty parts and so on. However, as with the drivers - we do accept a failed battery regarding lights/bulb/problems in fitting the lights properly - and we will issue a requirement to prove rectification within a certain period - same as we do with motorists within reason.

It's called "professional judgement" of the situation and on the officer's conscience if he is proven incorrect in his decision. But - usually - gut reaction proves correct

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I should really post this up in the "Cycling" forum as it does warrant a thread in its own right there.
Or look up thre thread about "24 hour headlight requirement"

Per CW this week .. CTC is campaigning against compulsory headlights for drivers. (Odd as C+ and acf seemed in favour of anything which fines a driver )

The CTC fear drivers will look for lights and fail to see unlit cyclists and pedestrians.

I have a little suggestion and I think this will also become law.. lights on bikes, high viz strips for all and I have noted more kiddies wearing the fluorescent I wore when going to school when we were BST permanent. in the late 60s /early 70s experiment. People were killed in the morning then and whilst the figures from the experiment seemed to show lesser KSI evening than current at the time .. morning rush is different as there is more urge for "punctuality" and there's more traffic now than then. I think a falsehood for that reason.

But high viz does work.. regardless.

As for the proposal.. well.. I think we will all automatically use our lights on gloomy winter days. In the high searing and glaring suns of the summer.. I think more hindrance than help.

The CTC claim the "peer reviewed" research is an "experiment which cannot represent what may happen under real driving conditions"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

does anyone else not have a clue what that was all about ?

or is it just me.

Good Grief!
And you wonder why so many on C+ believe this forum to be inhabited by loonies?

Probably you!

1. The law requires a cyclist to use lights on bicycle in the dark. We thus issue a fixed penalty when we cop them.


This is a MUST and the MUSTs are the LAW. The small print underneath these refers to sections of the Road Traffic Act by the way

S38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that



Interestingly as an aside - and folks here may find this interesting

The braking distances shown in the Highway Code are not admissible in proving speeding cases. (It works both ways ) as they amount to hearsay (R v FRIEL 1993 SLT 791 refers)


However, back to fining unlit cylcists . ..


This is not targetting cyclists. We pull drivers who fail to apply lights who have faulty lights as well.

We may use some discretion if the battery has "died" or bulb suddenly "blown" - and ask the cyclist to report in with the matter fixed - same as we do with some minor car problems.


That's the difference with real cops as opposed to automation. We can apply a bit of basic common sense to the situation in hand.

But in reality - it is rather black and white... Highway Code Rule 46 does state that the bicycle must have front and rear lights and all bikes manufactured after 1/10/85 are required to have amber reflectors.

Now whatever you ague to the contrary - a bicycle with working front and rear lights happens to be the law and insurance companies do take account of this when settling a claim - even in the so-called mythical land of cyclotopia on the continent (You know - that place where the motorist pays even if the cyclist caused the accident per the C+ drivellers. Only - in much the same way as they seem unable to read posts properly and understand exactly what they are reading - and do old fashioned comprehension questions per the old 11+ exams - they appear unable to read the small print on that foreign practice as well "Educated?" More like the slow learning class in a bog standard failing comprehensive school as one of the riff-raff commented to me. (Oooh - getting in the acid! Fingers over the road will be a-drumming again... dry day today - they should be enjoying a crisp ride as I did earlier this morning and will be going out again on my bike - in my full hi-viz gear! ) If cyclist clearly in the wrong - motorist is not automatically liable to pay him or her damages - even in Holland and Denmark where this is supposed to be the practice.

Road Traffic Act 1988 - s 28 and 29 regulate the standard of cycling on roads. Perhaps I should point out to all that the offence of causing bodily harm by dangerous driving also applies to pedal cycles under the provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s 2. and the "Offences Against the Person Act of 1861"


There are a number of other laws which we can use bring thugs on bikes and in cars - for that matter - to account.

As for not wearing high viz or something to make one SEEN - it's basic common sense. I recall the BST experiment. Every other advert reminded pedestrians to wear something "light in colour" and to be seen in the dark at the time - and we all wore hi- viz kagouls over our blazers when going to school. (I seem to have worn a hi-viz kagoul all my life now )

I am sure all of us know that even a road with normal street lighting will have shadows. These shadows can make a darkly clad figure be observer too late by some. I base this on the number of statements I have taken over the course of a long, long career and not some inane waffling by a bunch of cyclists on an obscure forum which thankfully the big wider world have never even heard of. It is only in the minds of those self-obsessed nutcases that the world is held to revolve around their "opinion" on C+. A good many people I talk to have never heard of either the site or the magazine until my mention of it. They have, however, heard of safespeed because "it's been mentioned in the papers"

My other post which I find odd that you "do not understand" was copy typed from this week's copy of CW which reports on the CTC's concerns over the EU proposal to require all cars to use dippies 24/7.


But basically - law requires a bicycle to be fitted with front and rear lights which actually work. Just like cars are required to have lights.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about a comment that if you are copped breaking this law - we will fine you just the same as we would fine a driver for the same offence of being unlit at night.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I think the CTC are campaigning against dipped lights all the time because it means that motorists are then on the look-out for lights rather than movement. Having toured in Scandinavia as well as driven over there, I would be concerned if the same were introduced here as I did get the impression that unless you have an enormous car headlight stuck to your bike, nobody's going to notice you until the last minute.

Are you suggesting that cyclists should also have to use lights all the time? Because at the end of the day, a bicycle light is always only a bicycle light, and is easily overlooked in comparison to car headlights.

I'm intrigued by the idea of giving a cyclists a producer.

Nope - but if they brought in "dippies" for cars - then the lights for cyclists 24/7 could also follow on.

For record - I have strong doubts that 24/7 lighting will improve road safety. What improves safety is motivating and encouraging the improvement of the skills required to drive and cycle on today's busy roads.

We still keep coming back full circle to the COAST message (which is really an easy to remember acronym on the salient bits of the Highway Code and Road/Bike/Cycle Craft) on this.



It's a sort cyclist version of the VDRS scheme. This scheme was introduced to streamline the process for dealing with vehicles with minor defects and to ensure the defects are rectified rather than simply punish. It's voluntary for cyclists here and for our drivers it's at the non-prosecution stage after a verbal warning. The official one for drivers spells out the defect and once the person accepts the form - they have to have the defect repaired and examined at a DfT testing station. They tehn endorse the form which must be returned to our "ticketing office" within 14 days - else we prosecute the car owner/driver. The officer who issues this gets the paper work to file 21 days later ...

But for the cyclists - we try here to give them a chance to fix the lights and the battery and just come and show us. We know bulbs can blow and baterries can run out after all. They seem to accept this more than a fine and it makes for goodwill in any case. It is up to the - cough - discretion of the officer though

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

And as for the pedestrian - some light clothing would help - but in darkness , the pedestrian must take some responsibility for his safety - only takes a second to look both ways before crossing a road and car lights are not that dim -

Perhaps more one for brainstorming - but if all vehicles are going to be forced to have lights on during the day (IMHO- ABOLUTELY STUPID, in the case of 4 wheeled vehicles), why not allow cyclists the option of a pulsed/strobed light - which would stand out(possibly) against the sea of light.

James Daley in the Independent seems to agree with that sentiment. Cyclists must make themselves as visible as possible. A cyclist riding around in the dark dressed in black, and without hights, will, sooner or later, get hit by a car. The difference between trees and cars is (usually ) that trees are in a fixed location, off the road, and cyclists are in a variable location, on the road.

The argument that a driver who collided with a stealth cyclist is guilty of driving at an excessive speed is pure "speed kills" spin. The cyclist is at fault for not cycling with due care and attention. If the cyclist hasn't the imagination to see what will most likely happen, he shouldn't be on the road.

_________________
Brian

I used to wear Hi-Viz on my cycle but it made no difference to the number of times I was cut up or otherwise molested by idiot car drivers so I stopped wearing it. The bottom line is, from the point of view of a vulnerable road user, that many motorists just dont look. Wearing Hi-viz makes not one iota of difference. The fact remains that cyclists, alomg with horse riders and pedestrians, are entitled to use the roads. They may wear any coloured clothing that they like. In law. The onus is therefore on the LICENCED motorist to look where they are going. SMIDSY actually, in the real world means IDL (I didnt look).

For what its worth I think folks who ride a cycle outwith the law should be procecuted.

But do you also agree that every road user should do whatever they (reasonably) can to ensure their own safety?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

No not really, thats not where Im coming from, I have an expectation, quite rightly IMO that every road user has a duty of care to everyone else on the road. Ive been cut up by motorists who then had the gall to suggest that because I was wearing black they couldnt see me. In broad daylight! Or the twunt who suggested that the reason he pulled out on me, in broad daylight again, was that I didnt have my lights on. I do everything required in law and more to ensure my own safety, I have three lights on the back and 45w on the front and still Im treated like shit by motorists who think their journey/ time/ life/ road space is more important than mine. Which is why Mr Schmidt I have no sympathy for motorists. And I am a motorist since the long term effects of chemotherapy cut short my cycling. You should try riding a bike, you may enjoy it, or more likely you might discover just how selfish many motorists are.