To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July

[Earl Aelfheah]

So here are my thoughts on this:

Every road user should do what they can to reduce the likelihood of an accident occurring and at night, this includes having lights

Cycling is not generally a dangerous activity, in fact it will probably increase your life, not shorten it, but like anything it is not risk free.

This is not a 'them and us' thing. Most cyclist are also car drivers and vice versa. We all need to look out for each other.

That said, I can understand the defensiveness some cyclist display in the face of criticism (and fall foul of it myself sometimes). There is a lot of unjustified vitriol targeted towards cyclists. There is a general narrative in the media of 'irresponsible cyclists' and a really distasteful amount of victim blaming which occurs when cyclists are involved in accidents. In this context it is easy to develop a chip on ones shoulder.

Fundamentally none of this changes point 1.

[StraferJack]

"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?

[LadyDeliah]

I think it's important to remember that motorists kill and maim not only cyclists, but huge amounts of pedestrians and other motorists, so I submit my point still stands, that if you take a potentially lethal piece of machinery into public space, the onus is on you to do so with a very high standard of care, regardless of the safety precautions taken or not taken by others.

Motorists should not be allowed to push the responsibility for road safety into others when it is them in charge of such a dangerous machine.

As I said above, that is the starting point, many of the 'sensible precautions' and defensive cycling would become less nessesary if the cause of the problem, I.e. The driving of Dangerous motorised vehicles were to be properly addressed.

[Jeremy]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but that could be a dog, or a child just as easily - what would my excuse be then?

Well again that depends on the situation doesn't it? I don't really understand your point here (you can't argue that the dog would have been more visible if it had a light on!), and you don't seem to understand mine.

If you are less noticeable, you are in more danger. Do you disagree?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lady D - I get your point. The costs to others, in terms of the potential consequences of driving a car are not insignificant and there is a huge responsibility therefore, which goes with driving. I think the majority of people recognise this, which is why we have a system of driving tests, licencing and policing. These things don't exist in relation to cyclists which is a recognition that it is a less potentially destructive activity. But that is not to say that there are no responsibilities which come with riding a bike. Having lights on at night is one of them.

[Medusa]

I am struggling to understand what is so complicated about all of this. Surely cyclists should cycle as safely as possible with proper safety equipment, including lights, esp with children in tow, and drivers should drive as safely as possible, which covers being aware of other road-users, such as cyclists.

End of story, no?

[henryb]

The highway code recommends pedestrians wear something fluorescent at night. Would anyone stop and shout at someone if they weren?t doing so? Yes pedestrians and cyclists should take reasonable steps to get themselves seen but it really depends on the context ? if they were cycling a couple of hundred yards on residential streets then the additional risk they are putting themselves in isn?t worth getting upset about. It is actually refreshing that someone thinks it is safe enough to cycle late at night.

The problem with the these complaints about cyclists isn?t that they are not justified ? it is that they blatantly ignore why the roads are dangerous in the first place.

[StraferJack]

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?

[LadyDeliah]

The current regulation and enforcement of driving safety is inadequate. How many people would fail their test if they had to resit it every 3 or 5 years?

[Jeremy]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But to what degree and why is it more dangerous? I don't think it's significantly more dangerous

I'd strongly disagree with that, but without anything more concrete to back it up than personal experience and a hunch, it's not really worth arguing that one further. But generally I'd say any simple steps you can take to keep yourself and others safe are worth taking. Including using lights and indicating clearly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Henryb - you make a good point.

[Penguin68]

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?

Often, particularly on roundabouts, road position (where there are two or more tracks) is a relatively good indication of turning intent, although signalling in addition would generally be good. Turning without signal if you are the only road user (or where no one is close enough to you to need to be aware of your intentions) is also reasonable, although again signalling would be better - if for no better reason than it becomes an automatic driving response (it is not for nothing that 'mirror, signal...' is a driving instructor mantra).

I would generally say that signallng where it isn't needed (i.e. there is no one else there, or your intentions are otherwise clear - you are in a lane which requires a mandatory turn - is a matter of manners (or good habits)) - but to fail to signal where it is needed is clearly a real problem.

Once you start to think of signalling as an option you will find yourself failing to signal where you are putting other road users (or pedestrians) at risk.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ha! I never knew that, but it's true: https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6

I wonder if any pedestrian has ever gone out with fluorescent armbands at night.

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The highway code recommends pedestrians wear

> something fluorescent at night. Would anyone stop

> and shout at someone if they weren?t doing so? Yes

> pedestrians and cyclists should take reasonable

> steps to get themselves seen but it really depends

> on the context ? if they were cycling a couple of

> hundred yards on residential streets then the

> additional risk they are putting themselves in

> isn?t worth getting upset about. It is actually

> refreshing that someone thinks it is safe enough

> to cycle late at night.

>

> The problem with the these complaints about

> cyclists isn?t that they are not justified ? it is

> that they blatantly ignore why the roads are

> dangerous in the first place.

[Jeremy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The current regulation and enforcement of driving

> safety is inadequate. How many people would fail

> their test if they had to resit it every 3 or 5

> years?

Well from the sounds of it you'd fail your cycling proficiency test! So that sounds a bit hypocritical.

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta, I have lights,

My bad, I thought you'd said you didn't.

[spider69]

Medusa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am struggling to understand what is so

> complicated about all of this. Surely cyclists

> should cycle as safely as possible with proper

> safety equipment, including lights, esp with

> children in tow, and drivers should drive as

> safely as possible, which covers being aware of

> other road-users, such as cyclists.

>

> End of story, no?

The is the edf forum will go on for ever. With replies from the same people going over the same ground as previous threads.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I imagine that the individual concerned was some sort of middle class Guardianista.

[LadyDeliah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The current regulation and enforcement of

> driving

> > safety is inadequate. How many people would

> fail

> > their test if they had to resit it every 3 or 5

> > years?

>

> Well from the sounds of it you'd fail your cycling

> proficiency test! So that sounds a bit

> hypocritical.

I doubt it, I passed my driving test in 1997, I've been cycling on roads since I was a kid, been cycling in London for almost 30 years, did cycling proficiency lessons in school as a kid and again with my kids when each of them got old enough to start cycling on the road.

Even if this weren't the case, cycling poses minimal risk to other road users, unlike driving.

How much additional training have you taken since you passed your test Jeremy?

[mako]

If the opening poster cared for the safety of the child on the bike then they shouldn't have shouted at them. Such distraction could be potentially lethal.

[mako]

I am also very concerned that despite their self confessed lack of cycling prowess the opening poster admits that they were cycling late at night, at speed,on a badly lit road. the opening poster sounds very dangerous to me and not really in a position to judge others.

[Jeremy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I doubt it, I passed my driving test in 1997, I've

> been cycling on roads since I was a kid, been

> cycling in London for almost 30 years, did cycling

> proficiency lessons in school as a kid and again

> with my kids when each of them got old enough to

> start cycling on the road.

Isn't using lights at night part of cycling proficiency / bikeability?

> How much additional training have you taken since

> you passed your test Jeremy?

A few lessons. Enough to know that I need to use the lights after dark.

[LadyDeliah]

Maybe you should read before you post. I use lights and a helmet cam.

[Jeremy]

But you seem to believe they are optional.. no?

[daveybigpotatoes]

All but a few one eyed people can see children riding a bike on an evening should do so competently and with normal safety gear. Also car drivers have a duty of care to others and should take all reasonable precautions. This is not rocket science.

Apportioning blame to a driver where a drunk steps out onto the road without warning, where the driver was driving safety, is nonsense.

[Cedges]

I'm unfit and wouldn't have been able to catch them up as they were going up hill and I was on a good run downhill, this doesn't have any reflection on the safety of my cycling. You'll also see that I have taken a refresher cycling course to ensure that I am cycling in the safest way for myself, other cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.

Please read before insulting me. Thank you.

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am also very concerned that despite their self

> confessed lack of cycling prowess the opening

> poster admits that they were cycling late at

> night, at speed,on a badly lit road. the opening

> poster sounds very dangerous to me and not really

> in a position to judge others.