Cyclist visibility

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I can't think of a single, local road safety measure, or public realm improvement that he hasn't objected to. So yes, it's just trolling.

You cut out the first bit. You can correct this if it's factually wrong? 

[Moovart]

Does anyone insist that hi Viz is the answer?  I think most people think lo Viz is just a bad idea if you are trying to look after your own safety. 

In the end you will never know how many people avoided death or injury by being more visible because you can't measure an incident that didn't happen.  But some things just make sense like being careful, and visible however you are traveling and not using a mobile phone when driving (and also when cycling and crossing the road).

And I'm glad you managed to avoid being hit by someone who was obviously driving dangerously and illegally.

 

[malumbu]

I last visited Amsterdam over 20 years ago.  I made the mistake of walking into the cycle lanes a few times without looking.  The cyclists alerted me to my mistake.  Id didn't blame them, or the Dutch government.  It was my own fault. I'm not sure hi vis would have made things any better. This was me not being used to the cycle infrastructure.  As great as the Netherlands is for bikes, Denmark takes it further.  All credit to both countries.  

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You cut out the first bit. You can correct this if it's factually wrong? 

It is factually wrong but very typical of your posts. There are plenty of examples of me supporting public realm improvements and local road safety measures throughout the many years of this on-going debate....I just think you're choosing to ignore them because you think it legitimises your attacks. You're wrong. Very wrong (and not for the first time). As I say, I am not the one acting in a troll-like manner here.

Go take a look - I will await your apology.

45 minutes ago, Moovart said:

Does anyone insist that hi Viz is the answer?  I think most people think lo Viz is just a bad idea if you are trying to look after your own safety. 

In the end you will never know how many people avoided death or injury by being more visible because you can't measure an incident that didn't happen.  But some things just make sense like being careful, and visible however you are traveling and not using a mobile phone when driving (and also when cycling and crossing the road).

And I'm glad you managed to avoid being hit by someone who was obviously driving dangerously and illegally.

Absolutely 100% this. @march46 no-one has ever claimed that high-vis is the solution on this forum (I am not sure how some are getting to this conclusion but I think it is another case of putting words in people's mouths to suit their own personal narrative) but clearly high-vis certainly helps to be seen - I mean that's just commonsense.

Granted, no amount of high-vis is going to help with a driver with their head in their phone and they are a scourge of our roads and I hate it if I see people doing this and glad that you were ok @march46. As far as I am concerned it should be a long driving ban for anyone caught using their phone whilst driving.

[first mate]

On 13/11/2025 at 18:31, Angelina said:

The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal.

Add to that dangerous weaving in and out, especially on this weather.

So selfish, irresponsible and dangerous.

I just thought it would be useful to remind everyone how this thread started.

The OP made a very valid point. But instead of looking at why maybe more cyclists are taking risks by not having lights and in addition choosing not to increase their visibility with hi-viz, some posters separated out the points in the statement, dismissing the no lights issue  ('illegal so no discussion necessary') and instead highlighted and focused solely on the hi-viz clothing aspect, some also choosing to mock to undermine, thereby deflecting from the original statement which made sense to many of us; as one poster put it- just common sense.

 

Edited Thursday at 18:33 by first mate

[Raeburn]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

I mean a local politician is saying this: "I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” 

You missed the additional context (surprise surprise!) in the quote;

 

“Everyone knows a fatbike is very different to an e-bike,” she said. “The tyres are wider, the bikes are heavier and you don’t need to pedal to move forward, so they are more like a moped than a bike.”

So, electric mopeds then. And in this context, initially Vondelpark, an inner city green park …which I agree, seems fair enough to ban electric mopeds from largely pedestrian places.

the quote you posted is from a traffic chief, not a politician. Why did you say this?

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/amsterdam-looks-to-ban-fatbikes-from-busy-parts-of-the-city/

Finally, my Google Streetview suggestion; I invited forum readers to check it out for themselves, not you? You seem to know the place, but seem properly hungup on my post. Please, no need to respond. 

——

apologies for diverting from topic March, Mate but there needs to be fact-checking & context.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

the quote you posted is from a traffic chief, not a politician. Why did you say this?

Who is a member of the Democrats 66 party, deputy mayor and is very much a politician (who has responsibility for traffic)......doh!

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

apologies for diverting from topic March, Mate but there needs to be fact-checking & context.

Yup. Please see above about how fact checking is very important...ahem..

 

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

So, electric mopeds then.

No. They are called Fatbikes. The clue is in their name but the suggested changes are for not just fat bikes but a whole range of bikes that are causing problems and injuries for their riders and others. Fatbikes are a particular problem.

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

Finally, my Google Streetview suggestion;

Is quite ridiculous.

3 hours ago, Raeburn said:

You seem to know the place, but seem properly hungup on my post.

Yup but, you know, in your mind I clearly know nothing of the challenges posed by cyclists in the inner city and am just saying things to "agitate" and "troll". But you claim there are no challenges after a 30 minute run around the city and a check of StreetView. Right......

 

[spark67]

I agree cyclists should make themselves more visible in the dark, for their own safety and others.

Though I had lights on front and back & helmet lights when I was hit by a careless driver 6 years ago causing me to have two operations to have metal plates fitted to fix broken bones. 
He was charged by the way.

We all need to look out for each other in the roads 

[snowy]

Look forward to your understanding of where a unrestricted electric moped that is a  fat bike fits into the Fiets / Snorfiets / Bromfiets hierarchy.

Ah, but it doesn't, as in the Netherlands unlike in the uk they're not currently defined by law (but banned from uk streets) - which is why you see them being sold in shops in the Museumkwartier to teenagers.

thats what they are campaigning for - restricting these newer higher speed, throttle controlled mini mopeds that teenagers are getting into as currently you need no mot, license, helmet like you do for the fiets above. 

 

 

[Raeburn]

On 28/11/2025 at 00:17, Rockets said:

Who is a member of the Democrats 66 party, deputy mayor and is very much a politician (who has responsibility for traffic)

well, that's great news then if they have the authority to ban e-motorbikes/scooters from a green, public park - much like Dulwich Park does? The police chiefs definition of the fatbike is clear in their own quote - a e-motorbike/e-scooter - and you've maybe confused/conflated with an offroad cycle with 4"+ wide tyres for snow/sand.

I think this is a very rational, pragmatic approach, as I said in my post above yours, so 

On 28/11/2025 at 00:17, Rockets said:

you claim there are no challenges

isn't true.

Again, not sure why you have a problem with the suggestion of Streetview; this invitation was for forum readers, not you (clearly stated in my post), and is perfectly reasonable. Or does it not show an 'utter nightmare'? Your repeated challenging of 'streetview' is the definition of agitator and troll. You seem to want to continually argue with everything, even when demonstrably untrue. I'll get the thread back on track in next post

 

----------

On 29/11/2025 at 07:26, spark67 said:

I agree cyclists should make themselves more visible in the dark, for their own safety and others.

Though I had lights on front and back & helmet lights when I was hit by a careless driver 6 years ago causing me to have two operations to have metal plates fitted to fix broken bones. 
He was charged by the way.

We all need to look out for each other in the roads 

 

Very sorry to read this Spark67, hope you are ok now. I had something similar relatively recently. Very visible, bright orange jacket, lights, bright street lights. I won't say too much because it's currently with CPS, but hit from behind by distracted driver which resulted in hospital and time off work. A deeply unpleasant experience.

Edited yesterday at 17:26 by Raeburn
2nd post auto-merged with 1st

[Rockets]

On 29/11/2025 at 09:55, snowy said:

Look forward to your understanding of where a unrestricted electric moped that is a  fat bike fits into the Fiets / Snorfiets / Bromfiets hierarchy.

Ah, but it doesn't, as in the Netherlands unlike in the uk they're not currently defined by law (but banned from uk streets) - which is why you see them being sold in shops in the Museumkwartier to teenagers.

thats what they are campaigning for - restricting these newer higher speed, throttle controlled mini mopeds that teenagers are getting into as currently you need no mot, license, helmet like you do for the fiets above. 

Therein lies the challenge and what this is all about - local Dutch authorities want more say in how they legislate to deal with nuisance modified bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters etc due to the chaos they cause (see my earlier statement about chaos in inner-city Amsterdam!) as central Dutch government claims you cannot differentiate between an e-bike or a fat bike (I am not sure if this is within the current legal definition or something else).

As a result, some local authorities want to ban certain types of vehicles from cycle lanes including e-scooters, fatbikes, some e-bikes and large cargo bikes and claim that central government is moving too slowly to act - from 2027 it will be law that anyone under 18 has to wear a helmet when riding an e-bike or fat bike but local authorities want central government to do more. The government is bringing in the helmet law apparently because of the sharp rise in hospital admissions of e-bike riders (it doubled between 2020 and 2024) and the number of 12 - 18 year olds suffering brain injuries from e-bike accidents rose 6-fold.

17 hours ago, Raeburn said:

Again, not sure why you have a problem with the suggestion of Streetview; this invitation was for forum readers, not you (clearly stated in my post), and is perfectly reasonable. Or does it not show an 'utter nightmare'? Your repeated challenging of 'streetview' is the definition of agitator and troll. You seem to want to continually argue with everything, even when demonstrably untrue. I'll get the thread back on track in next post

I can't wait for someone to jump into the Dangerous Drivers Everywhere thread and suggest people look at StreetView to see there are no such drivers around and watch for the reaction! 😉 Let's be clear challenging the validity and commonsense of a suggestion made by another forum user is not trolling - coming on and calling someone an "agitator" and "troll" is much closer to troll like activity!

17 hours ago, Raeburn said:

Very sorry to read this Spark67, hope you are ok now. I had something similar relatively recently. Very visible, bright orange jacket, lights, bright street lights. I won't say too much because it's currently with CPS, but hit from behind by distracted driver which resulted in hospital and time off work. A deeply unpleasant experience.

These are both awful and show how there is a real problem with distracted drivers and I very much hope that you win any case as the impact of a momentary lapse of concentration by drivers has long-term consequences for other road users. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 27/11/2025 at 17:30, Rockets said:

There are plenty of examples of me supporting public realm improvements and local road safety measures throughout the many years of this on-going debate

Can you provide one?

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Give it a rest Earl, this is beginning to sound like your solo pursuit of personal one-upmanship.

[exdulwicher]

48 minutes ago, first mate said:

Give it a rest Earl, this is beginning to sound like your solo pursuit of personal one-upmanship.

It's a fair question. Rockets seems to have fairly consistently complained about any and all traffic measures but maybe we've missed his thread of glowing endorsements about Dulwich Square, school streets, cycle lanes and bus lanes??

Some positivity would be nice so a list of what people like and support might be quite enlightening!

[Rockets]

Oh my goodness the relentless dog-whistle attacks are hilarious - it's like playground bullying.....and I am the one who needs to "grow up" apparently!

Anyway, sometimes fighting back exposes bullies for the cowards they are so let's see what reaction there is when I reel off just a few of the things I have supported over the years on this thread (some people clearly have very short memories)...let's see if any have the maturity to apologise and admit they were wrong.....

- segregated cycle infrastructure

- the need for more cycling parking for Lordship Lane

- pragmatic use of 20mph zones

- school streets

- the crossing at the Grove Tavern

- the need for a crossing at LL and East Dulwich Grove

- oh and to keep it on topic the sage advice that wearing high-vis is a commonsense approach when cycling (particularly at night)

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You did say you supported the Grove Tavern crossing, I'll give you that one - although it was whilst ranting about how the delivery of it was part of a nudge tactic by the council to slow traffic 🤣. You were also objecting to the 20mph scheme and segregated bike lane on Sydenham Hill in the same thread.

The others are all examples of where you may have said you support something in principle, but have then objected to every specific scheme introduced locally.

And it's not 'bullying' to point this out - it's just that I know exactly what your position will be on any local scheme before you've expressed it. You'll object that it's part of an 'active travel lobby / cyclist lobby' and council conspiracy to attack car drivers. 

On 17/03/2025 at 14:26, Rockets said:

I whole-heartedly support the need for the pedestrian crossing at that junction […] my point (which I believe there is some substance to) is that council officials really are not at all interested in trying to keep traffic flowing freely and that they may actually see massive congestion as part of the "nudge" strategic approach. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah that's a close to an apology as I suspect I will get! Given you made that false accusation as your justification for @Raeburn calling me a "troll" I presume you don't think I am troll now after all?

57 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The others are all examples of where you may have said you support something in principle, but have then objected to every specific scheme introduced locally.

Again, not correct and you seemingly trying to "yeah...but" in true Vicky Pollard style.

I will let others judge how some posters behave on here and whether it constitutes bullying - it certainly feels as if some wage relentless unfounded aggressive attacks on anyone who dares disagree with their particular view of the world - there is also a hell of a lot of narrative manipulation, name-calling and putting words into people's mouths going on. A lot of people who contributed massively to this forum over the years have been hounded off it. Why? Because they dared to voice an opinion that differs from others - kind of sad don't you think?

[Raeburn]

On 26/11/2025 at 11:10, Raeburn said:

‘anywhere inside Singelgracht is a nightmare for pedestrians‘

 How about a live street cam in central? Plenty available, picked this at random;

Shows exactly the same as Streetview - a harmonious city centre, with integration of all forms of transport. Motor vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, micromobility vehicles - I don't think you can see trams, but there is a line around the corner.
 

I'd say it's the opposite of the entire central district being an 'utter nightmare' you assert.

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Raeburn said:

 Motor vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, micromobility vehicles - I don't think you can see trams, but there is a line around the corner.

Oh I can't see *anything* cos none of them are wearing hi-vis. That's literally just a black screen, none of those boats are in hi-vis. How careless of them! If someone paddles into one of those boats, I'll have no sympathy for it cos it's not dressed properly. Stupid boat. Where's its lifejacket and helmet?

I had to look away from the rest of it, the absolute chaos of all those black things colliding with each other was traumatic.

It's been a while since I saw Amsterdam actually; last time I saw it, Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson were having a massive shootout in the place. I assume Rockets must have been visiting at that time and assumed that was just normal rush hour.

😉

[first mate]

Plenty of videos out there, taken over this summer, showing cycling rush hour in Amsterdam-paints a rather different picture. Anyhow, anyone who has been to Amsterdam recently knows what it is like, it really isn't a matter of debate.

[Penguin68]

30 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Oh I can't see *anything* cos none of them are wearing hi-vis. That's literally just a black screen, none of those boats are in hi-vis. How careless of them! If someone paddles into one of those boats, I'll have no sympathy for it cos it's not dressed properly. Stupid boat. Where's its lifejacket and helmet?

Ha de ha. But the speed limit on Amsterdam canals is 6 kilometers an hour, so collision risks are highly reduced, as would be damage. I smell desparation in posts like this. And in general life jackets are advised on parts of the canal system exposed to turbulence. 

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

Oh my goodness the relentless dog-whistle attacks are hilarious - it's like playground bullying.....and I am the one who needs to "grow up" apparently!

Anyway, sometimes fighting back exposes bullies for the cowards they are so let's see what reaction there is when I reel off just a few of the things I have supported over the years on this thread (some people clearly have very short memories)...let's see if any have the maturity to apologise and admit they were wrong.....

- segregated cycle infrastructure

- the need for more cycling parking for Lordship Lane

- pragmatic use of 20mph zones

- school streets

- the crossing at the Grove Tavern

- the need for a crossing at LL and East Dulwich Grove

- oh and to keep it on topic the sage advice that wearing high-vis is a commonsense approach when cycling (particularly at night)

 

 

 

It does surprise me that you are so supportive of the above as most of your posts give a very different image. 

Looking at three of the above; cyclists' visibility - you seem to have used this as a stick to beat cyclists; school streets - perhaps I am confusing you with others but there is a narrative here that this is all about Southwark ripping off the poor driver, with poor signage, inappropriately placed; 20 mph, I love the prefix 'pragmatic' - I recall you complaining about some 20mph roads rather than championing them.

 

[exdulwicher]

10 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I smell desparation in posts like this.

It was irony*

 

*Like gold-y and bronze-y but made of iron.

😉

Edited 24 minutes ago by exdulwicher