StraferJack

Hi Huggers - I respnded to the Facebook invite pretty quickly which felt like I was saying "as if!" but it's purely because I can't be there this year Best of luck with the show!

Circumstances will differ of course Jeremy - but as a general rule drivers should have notice of whats ahead and to the side of the road. That's fair, right?

no no - collisions are rarely any single parties fault - I'm not saying the driver has full culpability. But nor is the driver entirely blameless in most cases Cyclists move at speed and will appear much more suddenly than pedestrians perhaps - harder to deal with for sure. But even so, we drive knowing that anything might appear suddenly and we should be alert BTW when I posted earlier about cars no longer signalling as much, I was told mine was anexdotal evidence. But as you walk about in London, and you cross roads, roundabouts etc are you saying you don't notice something similar?

"And if a pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone and gets hit, then the driver should not be punished. " But that just isn't true - that idiot walking into the road might well deserve punishment of some kind but a careful driver will have an eye out for not just idiots, but any sudden presence (children, animals etc) It's still demonstrably careless driving And I might have to put a footnote on every post on this thread but saying that doesn't make me anti-driver. I drive through some pretty narrow roads and you just can't drive and expect noting to suddenly appear. Letting a driver off for hitting an idiot who appears out of nowhere as opposed to a child, is just a technicality

A muppet of a man ... (Sorry. Pavlovian reaction every time I see the m word these days)

I THINK Mustard was just adding Bellenden to the list of nice places near to ED - I don't think they were making reference to the "Lions Head" (whatever/wherever that is)

"Getting a bit grey, though" Those days llooooong gone for me

Good shout, Gerrard Also, the way she talks about everything as if it hasn't been heard/seen a million times before. Musicians who have been around for years tend to have addressed the same subjects over and over. But with Hobbes, she trails it as "never before" stuff

You can probably guess from the lack of a thread this year, and from the number of views on your post but no, no Barry Barry Road Race/Amble this year Unless.... someone like yourself were to volunteer to organise it and publicise it

of course I don't disagree with the bald statement But to what degree and why is it more dangerous? I don't think it's significantly more dangerous To take another example - From what I can see, many drivers seem to not bother signalling when turning or when exiting a roundabout these days. It varies depending on the weherabouts but I would estimate I only see a signal less that 50% of the time Are those drivers putting people more at risk than if they were signalling? probably. But is it a real problem or is it just bad manners?

"But if the other guy is pulling out of a side road, with no lights on, between parked cars? You probably wouldn't notice him as soon as you would have done otherwise. " but that could be a dog, or a child just as easily - what would my excuse be then?

ok, I'll rephrase because my perception of cycling as a risky activity would make me too nervous to enjoy cycling on London Roads, especially with a young child , I steer well clear of it

It's precisely because cycling can be so risky in London that I wouldn't be cycling down Goodrich Road late at night in the first place, lights or no lights. I'm slightly annoyed that I have been painted as turning this into a bikes good/cars bad thread as I was careful to point out I was a driver. It has now turned into a thread where people are saying things like " as other road users are all selfish, uncaring, b*st*rds, thoughtlessly rushing through life, they are placing their lives, where they do not use lights/ high viz bands etc. in the hands of people they don't trust and do despise. " Now there may be exaggeration for effect going on here, but as with the OP, hyperbole was already in full use " you were doing everything in your power to try and kill you and your child" Cedges carefully explained later what was meant but there is still a rush to over-dramatise To everyone who says the people on the bikes SHOULD have been wearing reflectors and lights, I agree totally. Was it increasing the risk to themselves by not doing so? Probably But it's not despising anyone to say that if they were involved in a collision, I would be more interested in questioning the driver than i would standing over the bodies saying "well you should have.." etc In Jeremy's example of what sociologists are now calling car-on-car violence, he says that it would have been the driver not using his lights who would be to blame. He certainly would be found wanting legally and if it was me encountering him I would probably not be happy. But would I crash into him? I have to think I would have been driving really badly for that to happen. Do other people not think so?

Let's leave aside these cyclists for a moment If you are driving down any side street in dulwich, ( or anywhere) your JOB is to be alert. You don't know if some dog is going to dart out between cars. You are driving at night on a narrow street. It's on you to be aware Stray dogs. Domestic dogs. Cats. Cyclists. Children. All of them would be more visible if they wore reflective gear but you can't count on any of that. But it is you driving the machine that will kill something. Putting the onus on everyone else is fine and dandy but you should be careful The cyclists in question would be well advised and are legally obliged to wear gear. But if you can't see them Without gear you shouldn't really be driving

There was no them and us comments. That's your take numbers If there are bad drivers however, don't blame their potential victims for not wearing the right clothes

Well if it was my car I wouldn't drive it because I'm responsible for driving a machine that can kill through sheer heft. That's the difference. Physics. Not some alleged anti car bias Plus it is illegal to drive without working headlights isn't it? Then again so is cycling but slightly more ambiguity http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations But basically driving at night, I pay attention, can see and am not worried about endangering life.

Not that fortunate. You were just observing rules of the road And paying attention. Good for you.

Good suggestions from numbers Get some chicken carcasses going for lots of chicken stock Use as a base for onion soup, beef bourgugnon, couple of roast chickens, gravy etc Bouillabaisse a crowd please too

Them and us? "I drive at night" So am I them or am I us? Who is us and who is them? What is with your comments about driving to airports? I don't understand your thinking I think I said I would be using lights if if was cycling. So the answer you your "is that ok" question would be that But not do I think cycling in london at night is " doing everything in your power to get the child killed" I don't know the circumstance. But let's say I had to cycle home with my daughter at 11 at night and had no lights ( battery? Personal rule? Vandalism? I dunno) In any case I would be confident about street lights and cars headlights providing sufficient visibility. I certainly wouldn't accept I would be trying to get my child killed

Which bit of me saying I drive at night lead you to think "anti car"??

Sorry numbers but none of that made sense No headlights? Who is cedges worrying about? Drivers who don't have headlights on? Headlights will be involved with any car surely? " Please don't tell me everyone who is anti-car has never made use of it or do we all cycle to the airport to catch those completely unnecessary flights " I've read this several times. Don't know what it means

What's the usual frame of reference. French food?

The terms of engagement are different to other utility companies tho surely? You don't give a means of payment , you don't get leccie or water But you can easily try and get a free ride on buses and trains. And so many people do, the honest person who occasionally messes up is collateral damage. But the blame is firmly on the law breakers and not the transport companies It would be different if they were so authoritarian with very few attempts at a free ride. But that isn't the case

Like loz I'm torn at some level as well I have been caught out by leaving travel card at home and feel the punishment was disproportionate But mostly I see people trying it on. I don't think more ticket inspectors are the solution People need to cop on and behave When the bendy buses were knocking about, I would tap in and 80% of the time people I was with (people I knew and trusted) would ask me why I did it. Only a few stops Yeah I know. I'm a square.

As I said, I wouldn't normally do it But if someone does, should they be injured or worse, I would be loathe to say it was their fault. But illumination and hi viz for all modes of transport is ultimately largely necessary because of bad driving If the roads were dedicated to cyclists not wearing hi viz jackets, what's the worst that could happen But driving a car is putting you in charge of a machine that can mow people over without even realising. So I think it's beholden on us when we are driving to bear the ultimate responsibility I don't fundamentally have a problem with people cycling at night. Even kids. There is street lighting and your headlamps. How much help do drivers need not to kill someone ?