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

[LadyDeliah]

I'm comparing the dynamics of dominant groups of people in relation to those with less power/voice and how that power sets the agenda.

If we are going to find a solution to the problem of cyclist and pedestrian deaths, we need to open our minds to a different dynamic in the motorist/cyclist/pedestrian debate.

Another interesting similarity in the male/motorist dominance example, is the way that men and motorists fiercely resist/ed any changes in the discourse. Those in a position of privilege don't give it up, they have to be forced to behave more equitably.

[aquarius moon]

Would you cycle in the dark without lights though LadyD?

Would responsible car drivers drive without lights?

If it's all about respecting each other's right to the road, surely it's all about helping each other out too, by making yourself as conspicuous as possible to other road users.

[TillieTrotter]

Good Lord!!!

[northlondoner]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 11pm with no lights and a child on the back? Is

> there nothing that a cyclist can do that would be

> classed as 'wrong' by some people?

>

> I think I going to go into t-shirt production.

> Every cyclist should have one.

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5

> ,file=145411

Top post. According to some folk cyclists are never wrong. About anything. Ever.

It's always the fault of others . Got that?

[LadyDeliah]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> Would you cycle in the dark without lights though

> LadyD?

>

> Would responsible car drivers drive without

> lights?

>

> If it's all about respecting each other's right to

> the road, surely it's all about helping each other

> out too, by making yourself as conspicuous as

> possible to other road users.

As a rule I don't cycle without lights, but if my USB charged back light has run out of juice then yes, but rarely. Any time I've been hit by a car or van driver though has been in broad daylight.

Responsible car drivers are in charge of a lethal machine and have an obligation not to kill or maim people with that machine. Using their headlights is part of that.

No it's not all about respecting each other's right to use the road, although that is part of what I'm trying to get across. The main point I've been trying to make is that dealing with the thing that causes the danger, I.e. The motorised vehicles and their drivers, should be the starting point in dealing with road safety, not the precautions others have to take to mitigate the danger posed to them.

[Jeremy]

As far as I am concerned, cycling on the road at night with a child, without lights or reflective clothing is indefensible.

Of course drivers need to be aware of cyclists, pedestrians, etc. It's about ALL road users being responsible, not just motorists. If two cars collided at night, one of which had neglected to turn on their headlights, there wouldn't be any debate as to which one had been acting irresponsibly. There's no reason why cyclists should be immune from such basic precautions.

[LadyDeliah]

When I cycle or drive at night, London is so well lit that I can see anything on the road for at least 100 meters.

If you can't see, or can't stop in time when you do see, someone on the road who is not illuminated in those conditions, you should not be allowed to drive.

[daveybigpotatoes]

Not having lights on whilst riding a bike at night is daft. Not ensuing your child has lights on is reckless. Everyone needs to take some personal responsibility.

No one denies that cyclist need better infrastructure in London but it just might be wrong to argue all the worlds evils result from nasty male rapist drivers.

[DulwichFox]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> Would you cycle in the dark without lights though

> LadyD?

>

> Would responsible car drivers drive without

> lights?

>

> If it's all about respecting each other's right to

> the road, surely it's all about helping each other

> out too, by making yourself as conspicuous as

> possible to other road users.

Absolutely agree..

Cyclists need to ensure they can be seen. For their own safety.

Pedestrians need to take care too.

If you run across the road in front of a car. We have all done it.

Then you stand the risk of getting run over.

Cyclists knock people down too. Mainly on pavements.

I was almost hit when I stepped off the pavement to see if my bus was coming,

and a cyclist came up behind me cycling on the wrong side of the road against the flow of traffic.

That was in Lordship Lane early one morning.

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> When I cycle or drive at night, London is so well

> lit that I can see anything on the road for at

> least 100 meters.

In that case I will stop using the headlights on my murder machine (such a dreadful waste of energy). Streetlights are perfectly good enough. As long as I can see where I'm going, that's all that matters.

[Penguin68]

Modern car headlights are now very powerful - much more so than in the past, which means that, yes, visibility may be better for the driver, but, equally, where the lights are in a car heading towards you, the glare may well make other, unlit, road users less visible - anyone who uses roads without taking required (legally required) care about their own visibility is relying entirely on the skill and care of other road users - as cyclists are so proud to tell us, 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.

How stupid is that? If car drivers have a duty of care to other road users (they do) then other road users have, at the very least, a duty of care towards themselves.

And the issue that the (also cycling, as I read it) OP had was not that an adult had placed themselves at risk (clearly their choice, saves the plane fare to Switzerland) - but that they had willing placed a child at the same risk, at the very least hardly a good role model.

When I was a child and learning to ride a bicyle, I was expected, even in daylight, to have lights fitted to my bike (and was stopped by a beat policemen when I hadn't, and warned), but my parents did not let me out onto even side roads before I could demonstrate that I could signal safely (i.e. ride one handed, left or right). I now see perhaps only one in 10 (or less) cyclists who bother to signal any turns - not that it would make much difference for a dark cyclist on a poorly lit road at night.

Why do people who cycle, clearly a risky and vulnerable form of transport, consider that taking no care or precaution for their own safety is an acceptable, let alone sensible, choice?

Pillory poor and careless and thoughtless drivers who do not drive so as to share the road safely with other users, of course - but that doesn't mean that the same level of lack of care is excusable in others, just because it is they who will be most damaged in any accident.

[northlondoner]

Superior post. Nailed it.

[StraferJack]

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?

[nashoi]

On a restricted road (which is most of London) headlights are not legally required, only sidelights.

Riding a bike is an extremely safe thing to do. Riding a bike without lights on a lit road is slightly less safe, but still extremely safe.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cycling is not a high risk activity, even in London. In fact research suggests that the benefits to health significantly out weigh the risks of accidents or injury: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/

[StraferJack]

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

[Otta]

I was about to say this thread is unbelievable, but it's actually classic EDF and I can no longer tell whonis winding who up.

But for what it's worth, if you ride a bike at night with no lights you're a feckin moron.

I'm a pedestrian that has shit eyesight, why shouldn't you have to have lights on your bone breaking machine so I can see you coming when I'm crossing a road? Or should I just stay indoors after dark?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough SJ, but it is important to challenge that perception. It is also dangerous being a pedestrian walking the streets. Four times as many pedestrians are victims of road fatalities than cyclists and increasing the number of cyclists reduces the risks for everyone (of both traffic accidents and shortened life expectancies as a result of air pollution).

[LadyDeliah]

I don't have lights and a helmet cam to make me a better cyclist, I am a good cyclist without these things, hyper aware of my environment and able to act defensively. Just as I take precautions against rape and other attack by, for instance, keeping physically for and practicing various martial arts most of my adult life but should people who don't, be blamed if they are unable to fight off an attacker?

I wear these things because many motorists do not show the requisite level of care towards more vulnerable road users. This is why I am of the opinion that the level of skill and care required of drivers should be increased significantly and enforced rigourously.

Far more people die on the roads than in airline accidents, yet the standards expected of airling pilots is extremely high and they are forced to undergo regular fitness and competence tests. The same should be the case for drivers.

And no there is no duty of care not to endanger yourself. Clearly it's sensible not to, but try telling that to testosterone fuelled teenage boys.

[hpsaucey]

A curiously fascinating thread - but please God - make it stopppppppp!

[Otta]

LD I am reassured that your helmet cam would capture the gormless look on my face as you hit me when I stepped out in front of you because I didn't see you coming on a dark night.

It doesn't actually matter how good a cyclist or aware you are.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... Yeah, I do agree that to cycle on the roads at night, without lights is stupid beyond belief. I have no argument with that - but do challenge the general idea of cycling as a dangerous activity.

[LadyDeliah]

Otta, I have lights, or are you saying you wouldn't see them either? Kind of nullifies your point if so and just to ease your fear, I've never hit a cyclist in almost 30 years of cycling in London. Lots of near misses, during the day, when people step off the road into my path.

Actually that's not correct, I forgot about an accident I had in Waterloo, when some idiot ran out into the road from the front of a stationary bus. I went flying sideways and banged my head on a black cab and despite having a helmet was concussed. I also dented the cab door and gashed my arm pretty badly.

Lying in the road on a busy road was also pretty dangerous and I'm lucky nothing ran me over.

Have to stop trying to type on my phone without my glasses, arrgh the typos are driving me nuts!

[Jeremy]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> I have to think I would have been driving really badly for that to happen.

It really depends on the situation, doesn't it? If you're both going 20-30mph, in the opposite direction and can see each other coming, it seems pretty unlikley you'll collide. 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.

If you are less noticeable, you are in more danger. Only an idiot would disagree.

[first mate]

First let me say that I completely support cycling in town...a good thing etc.. However, over the last few days I have had witnessed some hair-raising cycling as well as driving in town. We all know that some drivers are selfish and careless to the point of criminality, but I have seen cycling that really makes me nervous- the phrase 'death wish' springs to mind.

Add to that the adult 20/30 something male who felt it his god given right to cycle on the path down Lordship Lane yesterday, clearly expecting pedestrians to part and make way for him. The path was full of people and children. I did not make way and he had to stop and unplug his earphones so that we could have a 'conversation' about his behaviour.