Another Stealth Cyclist hit.



In article <[email protected]>,
dabac <[email protected]> writes:
>
> But let's face it, avoiding black can be quite tricky. I don't honestly
> think I've ever seen any winter tights in any other color for instance.
> Black also works well if you want a limited set of gear to use for
> several different disciplines.


Cycling-specific clothing including tights
often has integral, reflective fabric.
My Louis Garneau tights have the reflective
LG logo. It's not much, but it's better
than nothing. Of course I greatly believe
in using a "good" (for one's respective application)
combination of active and passive lighting at night.
But every little bit helps.

> But avoiding reflectors and lights, well that's just plain silly.


It seems to work for some fellow city folks,
although I sometimes get the impression they're
parasiting off of lit cyclists such as myself.

I don't think it would work for me. I don't
mind being interdependent, but I refuse to
be a parasite. I guess I'm just an epiphyte,
using other people's light sources to illuminate
my reflectives.

Sometimes I'm a saprophyte. Especially when
I buy stuff at thrift shops.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
On Nov 30, 6:27 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:

>
> > > I support a principle like the Dutch use, which is that
> > > the motorist is presumed to be at fault in a collision with any non-
> > > motorist. That's probably the only way we can persuade many people to
> > > drive with due caution.

>
> > > They are the ones who chose to drive. The burden should be upon them
> > > to mitigate the risks they impose on others, not the other way
> > > around.

>
> > Mebbe. But running a red light in any state of lighting is pretty much
> > asking for it. It doesn't just violate the law, it violates the laws of
> > physics to ask crossing traffic to be able to stop in that circumstance.

>
> Not everything and everybody can be expected to know and follow the
> rules of the road. Animals, children, retarded/crazy people, and
> unmanned runaway objects are all likely to violate rights-of-way
> without recourse. All of these things will exist regardless of
> whether people drive cars or ride bikes or not.
>
> It's no good to pretend that this is a simple matter of physics. The
> imposition of traffic hazards is almost exclusively the unilateral
> voluntary action of motorists, whose convenience of travel is
> arbitrarily elevated to a higher importance than the safety of non-
> motorists (to say nothing of the quality of life in urban areas).
> There's no law of physics that says anyone who wants to travel by car
> must be allowed to do so.


I'm with Chalo 100% on this.

- Frank Krygowski
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
0
Views
368
Road Cycling
Sir Ridesalot
S