Cambridge cyclists!

Eatmorepies

I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.

25% - no lights
25% - very dim lights
25% - small LEDs only
25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large
angle at the eye.
90+% - stealth clothing

I though it was bad enough in the daylight last June, when they dived about
in the traffic without regard to courtesy or safety - but add to that mix a
belief that because they can easily see cars, then car drivers can easily
see them and you presumably lose one or two a week.

I feel better now.

John

P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura
jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a
minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic
elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all
virtuous.

Richard Bates

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:35:29 -0000, "Eatmorepies"
<stopthere@lineone.net> wrote:

>P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura
>jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a
>minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic
>elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all
>virtuous.

Without wishing to be rude, might there be an element of risk
compensation on yhour part?

It may be interesting too look at some stats on cyclist fatalities in
Cambridge. Car drivers might be more aware of stealth cyclists in
Cambridge than they are of brightly lit cyclists elsewhere?

Just a random, unbacked up thought of mine...

--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?

Jeremy Parker

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:34td4kF4gtovhU1@individual.net...
> I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've
never
> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>
> 25% - no lights
> 25% - very dim lights
> 25% - small LEDs only
> 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a
sufficiently large
> angle at the eye.
> 90+% - stealth clothing

It's the ones that you didn't see at all who are at risk, of course.
Do you have any kind of guesstimate of how many that might be? I
note that you numbers in your table add up to 100%

Jeremy Parker.

Badger

Richard Bates wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:35:29 -0000, "Eatmorepies"
> <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura
>>jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a
>>minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic
>>elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all
>>virtuous.
>
>
> Without wishing to be rude, might there be an element of risk
> compensation on yhour part?
>
> It may be interesting too look at some stats on cyclist fatalities in
> Cambridge. Car drivers might be more aware of stealth cyclists in
> Cambridge than they are of brightly lit cyclists elsewhere?
>
> Just a random, unbacked up thought of mine...
>
Na, more likely they're full of their own self importance academics and
students and totally immune from accidents....

Niel, who works in a University and see's it all to often.

Eiron

Badger wrote:

> Niel, who works in a University and see's it all to often.

In the English department perchance?

--
Eiron.

Tosspot

Eatmorepies wrote:

> I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.

<snip rant>

> I feel better now.

Hmmm...I think you are like me. I drive, ride a motorbike and drive a
car. My Anthrotech recumbent looks like Blackpool at Christmas cos I'm
*paranoid* about dozy car drivers. But...I have been there, if you can
see them, you can avoid them, at least until it hurts.

Another thought, I mustn't post while pissed :-(

Badger

Eiron wrote:
> Badger wrote:
>
>> Niel, who works in a University and see's it all to often.
>
>
> In the English department perchance?
>
Certainly NOT, never passed an english exam in my life!

David Hansen

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:35:29 -0000 someone who may be "Eatmorepies"
<stopthere@lineone.net> wrote this:-

>90+% - stealth clothing

What proportion of cars are not painted yellow?

In a war of escalating brightness it is easy to see who the winners
will be. Those with the largest surface area for bright paint and
those who have an engine to generate electricity for lights. That is
why the road "safety" lobby are in favour of such a war.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

chris French

In message <34td4kF4gtovhU1@individual.net>, Eatmorepies
<stopthere@lineone.net> writes
>I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
>seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>
>25% - no lights
>25% - very dim lights
>25% - small LEDs only
>25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large
>angle at the eye.
>90+% - stealth clothing

So, what's the problem - you saw them all.............
--
Chris French, Leeds

DavidR

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote

>I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>
> 25% - no lights
> 25% - very dim lights
> 25% - small LEDs only
> 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently
> large angle at the eye.
> 90+% - stealth clothing

Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see pedestrians &
cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands out quite well) .
When a car approaches they disappear. One might argue that cars should be
on sidelights only.

JLB

chris French wrote:
> In message <34td4kF4gtovhU1@individual.net>, Eatmorepies
> <stopthere@lineone.net> writes
>
>> I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
>> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>>
>> 25% - no lights
>> 25% - very dim lights
>> 25% - small LEDs only
>> 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently
>> large
>> angle at the eye.
>> 90+% - stealth clothing
>
>
> So, what's the problem - you saw them all.............

Exactly. They were in a city, under street lights. Might as well
complain about the lack of lights and reflective clothing on the
pedestrians.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Andy Morris

DavidR wrote:
>
> Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see
> pedestrians & cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands
> out quite well) . When a car approaches they disappear. One might
> argue that cars should be on sidelights only.

Thats made me think about it in a whole new light.


Actually it has

Car headlights are a lot more about shouting LOOKOUT I'M COMING than about
seeing things with.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Zog The Undeniable

Eatmorepies wrote:
> I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>
> 25% - no lights
> 25% - very dim lights
> 25% - small LEDs only
> 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large
> angle at the eye.
> 90+% - stealth clothing
>
> I though it was bad enough in the daylight last June, when they dived about
> in the traffic without regard to courtesy or safety - but add to that mix a
> belief that because they can easily see cars, then car drivers can easily
> see them and you presumably lose one or two a week.
>
> I feel better now.
>
> John
>
> P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura
> jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a
> minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic
> elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all
> virtuous.

I think they can get away with it because there are so many cyclists in
Cambridge that drivers expect them, stealth mode or not.

Alan Braggins

In article <34ts04F4g965mU1@individual.net>, DavidR wrote:
>"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote
>
>>I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never
>> seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
>>
>> 25% - no lights
>> 25% - very dim lights
>> 25% - small LEDs only
>> 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently
>> large angle at the eye.
>> 90+% - stealth clothing
>
>Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see pedestrians &
>cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands out quite well) .
>When a car approaches they disappear. One might argue that cars should be
>on sidelights only.

As they used to, and there was briefly the attempt to introduce "dim-dip".
But, assuming "very dim lights" means "merely the legal standard lights",
and "small LEDs only" includes anything short of an EL300 not just the
poxy little glowworm things, Eatmorepies observations roughly match mine.

But a brief study of accident data shows it isn't as dangerous as he thinks,
though it would be nice if those using no lights or glowworm LEDs got some
(especially those riding off pavements and onto the road at random places).