Cyclist visibility

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

But surely it is obvious the issues that can arise if it is not easy to tell the difference between the two, where an illegal e-bike looks very similar to a legal one? How are you supposed to police this? I don't really get why you are nitpicking this point?

Spot on @first mate - with a subtle tweak to the throttle or the bike's computer a fatbike can be turned from a Fiets to a Snorfiets to a Bromfiets category without anyone being able to tell - it's why the Dutch police have invested so much in those mobile treadmill things all over the country to determine what category of bike it is based on it's maximum speed. They cannot tell by looking at it. And to be honest it is probably why they are favoured by Dutch teenagers as you can buy one perfectly legally and very quickly modify it to go really fast. A similar thing happens over here where some E-bike conversion kits come with a keyfob which controls the maximum power output - one click and you're within legal limits another click (which you will only ever use when you're offroad of course) and you're Warp factor 9. 

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

As I've posted before for most of the population it is easy to distinguish an illegal e-bike - speed and no, or limited, pedaling.  Many don;t even look like a conventional bike.  Really don't understand how you can confuse a legal bike with a powered two wheeler.

I refer my right honourable friend to my previous post.....the Dutch fatbike is a classic example where speed may be the only obvious indicator.

7 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Meanwhile as said before if it quacks like a duck.....

...it's a bike? 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

What point do you think you're making here?

If we accept your (ridiculous) assertion, that all "two wheeled contraptions" are the same and should be regulated accordingly; That there is a "need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" - then what? It implies that you think bicycles should all be regulated as though they're illegally modified electric powered bikes ('mopeds' as they're designated in UK law).

This is just a load of pedantic nonsense.

Again, what exactly is it you're calling for?

[malumbu]

Deleted

Edited 19 hours ago by malumbu
Some may not be amused

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah the idea that you are not allowed to articulate a potential problem unless you have the solution is what is truly ridiculous and is what you seem to be suggesting here.

The first stage is some agreement that there is a growing problem; the challenge is in identification and policing. 

[Rockets]

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

What facts? You suggest all "two wheeled contraptions" should be treated the same, then imply the "need for more stringent [sic] laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle", and talk endlessly about illegally modified, electric bikes. The corollary of those arguments is that bicycles should be regulated in same way as mopeds. That's clearly ridiculous, and so I've asked you to clarify what your actual point is, rather than just relying on the usual innuendo and evasive 'just asking questions' rhetorical device. Apparently you don't need to have a point though according to first mate 🤣. As for distraction - this thread wasn't about e-bikes, or Amsterdam. You've taken it off topic, in pursuit of your weird, anti-bicycle obsession.

Edited 6 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I, and I suspect everybody else, have lost track on the point you are trying to make and I think you have too - you're tying yourself in knots just to, seemingly, pick a fight. If you've not got anything useful or constructive to say, or are not prepared to debate properly or cannot without taking it into a death-spiral, then just do us all a favour and don't. Your nonsense tactics are wearing thin - it seems everyone probably needs to stop responding to you to starve you of the oxygen of attention.

[Spartacus]

15 hours ago, malumbu said:

Deleted

Who deleted Mal ? 

Have they been added to Santa's naughty list again ? 

 

How has this thread come so far off the sensible point that for their own safety, cyclist should ideally have working lights and maybe a reflective strip or jacket after dark. I mean why wouldn't they want to stay as safe as they can ? 

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Who deleted Mal ? 

Have they been added to Santa's naughty list again ? 

Mal hasn't been deleted. Mal is getting better at self-policing and, I suspect, posted something that, in hindsight, they decided wasn't advisable and they deleted it themselves.

8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

How has this thread come so far off the sensible point that for their own safety, cyclist should ideally have working lights and maybe a reflective strip or jacket after dark. I mean why wouldn't they want to stay as safe as they can ? 

And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to  see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to  see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

People are simply pointing out (not unreasonably) that it doesn't matter how visible you make yourself if the driver is not looking, not paying attention or doesn't care.

Pictures like this crop up fairly routinely:

If you can hit something like that then a cyclist can be dressed as a fluoro unicorn and it'll still make sod all difference. Already on here you've had at least one comment about how someone has been hit while wearing all the "correct" kit. A few years ago I had one of the closest near-death experiences I've ever had, coming from North Dulwich Station to the RPH / EDG crossroads (on a bike with working lights, plus I had reflective ankle tabs and a brightly coloured top and a helmet), I stopped at the just-changing-to-red lights. The driver behind knew full well I was there cos he'd been behind me for 200m by that point, he just didn't want to wait so he floored it through the lights. The wing mirror brushed against my right arm and wrist as he sailed through the red light. That, by the way, is one reason I will rarely stop if there's anything behind me and the lights are just in the process of changing. Can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the vehicles will just floor it to get through.

And as per my previous comment, you all seem highly capable of not only spotting anyone on any sort of two-wheeled contraption, but also describing exactly what they're wearing and how they're riding!

It's just yet another anti-cyclist tirade which, coming from someone who claims to ride a bike, is somewhat surprising.