New Sub-species of Stealth Cyclist



Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Raven wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>>>Which raises the question, "What do people do when their batteries are flat?" Ride on regardless
>>>of the fact that you're breaking the law, frantically look for a shop where you can buy new ones
>>>or catch the bus?
>>
>>Or, do what I do - carry a spare set of batteries with you. Not difficult really!
>>
>
>
> Agree and they rarely go flat in an instant.

Rechargeables do. Sometimes even well-tended ones do, due to an unexplained and intermittent fault
in the charger. In that case, I just cycle home cautiously. In fact a rear light is not a legal
requirement here (in Japan) and so long as I am prepared to give way to people who do not see me
from the front, I don't see why it should be much of a problem.

James
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>>>Which raises the question, "What do people do when their batteries are flat?" Ride on regardless
>>>of the fact that you're breaking the law, frantically look for a shop where you can buy new ones
>>>or catch the bus?
>>
>>Or, do what I do - carry a spare set of batteries with you. Not difficult really!
>>
>
>
> Agree and they rarely go flat in an instant.

Rechargeables do. Sometimes even well-tended ones do, due to an unexplained and intermittent fault
in the charger. In that case, I just cycle home cautiously. In fact a rear light is not a legal
requirement here (in Japan) and so long as I am prepared to give way to people who do not see me
from the front, I don't see why it should be much of a problem.

James
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:09:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or, to remain semi-legal, simply carry flat bike lights. "Sorry, officer, see I've got lights, but
> the batteries are flat, on my way to buy some new ones <humble tentative smile>" :-/

Did you hear the story of the guy who was booked for steering his car with an adjustable spanner? He
had no steeering wheel and so he use a large spanner tightened onto the top of the shaft. His excuse
to the police was that he was on his way to get a new steering wheel. They weren't impressed. Not
the same at all I know.

Colin
--
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:09:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or, to remain semi-legal, simply carry flat bike lights. "Sorry, officer, see I've got lights, but
> the batteries are flat, on my way to buy some new ones <humble tentative smile>" :-/

Did you hear the story of the guy who was booked for steering his car with an adjustable spanner? He
had no steeering wheel and so he use a large spanner tightened onto the top of the shaft. His excuse
to the police was that he was on his way to get a new steering wheel. They weren't impressed. Not
the same at all I know.

Colin
--
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:09:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or, to remain semi-legal, simply carry flat bike lights. "Sorry, officer, see I've got lights, but
> the batteries are flat, on my way to buy some new ones <humble tentative smile>" :-/

Did you hear the story of the guy who was booked for steering his car with an adjustable spanner? He
had no steeering wheel and so he use a large spanner tightened onto the top of the shaft. His excuse
to the police was that he was on his way to get a new steering wheel. They weren't impressed. Not
the same at all I know.

Colin
--
 
>I spotted a rather odd stealth cyclist the other morning - at 6:45, so it was still dark.
>
>He was dressed in dark clothes, had no lights - but was wearing a helmet!

I can do you one better: how about three cyclist, riding abreast, wrong way of the street,
no lights, dark clothes, but all wearing helmets. Why protect something you're not using
anyway I wonder?

Mark van Gorkom.
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:59:15 +0000 (UTC), Richard Bates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5 Dec 2003 02:55:35 -0800, in
><[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael Green)
> wrote:
>
>>I propose the name 'doners' for the group of cyclists comprising 'stealth' and 'exempt
>>traffic regs'.
>
>Do you mean "Donor" as in "Organ Donor", or "Doner" as in "Doner Kebab" ? Both could be applicable
>I suppose!

Carry a Doner Card "In the event of my being knocked off my bike, please finish my kebab"

Tim
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > It seems to me that in order to be a genuinely stealthy cyclist one needs to put at least £100
> > worth of high power halogen lighting onto ones bike. I find doing so renders me (supposedly)
> > invisible to many drivers.
>
> Oh, that's interesting. Why don't you give us a few examples of instances when drivers have failed
> to see you with your £100 worth of high power halogen lighting? (You do need to turn them on, you
> know!) How often does this happen to you? 5 times/ride, every ride, once every 5 rides, once in a
> blue moon, days with the letter 'z' in them? What proportion of drivers fail to see you? 90%, 50%,
> 20%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.005%?
>

I would say approaching zero % actually fail to see me. However as there are a lot of self
rightious, arrogant ass*holes who drive cars someone will pull out into my path on about half of all
journeys I make. (About the same as do so in in perfect daylight conditions)...
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:06:15 +0100, Mark van Gorkom <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can do you one better: how about three cyclist, riding abreast, wrong way of the street, no
>lights, dark clothes, but all wearing helmets. Why protect something you're not using anyway
>I wonder?

This illustrates one of the problems with aggressive helmet promotion. It reduces safety to the
single issue of whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not, and leads to this kind of idiocy.

--
Dave...
 
[email protected] (Michael Green) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Didn't know what to make of this one. Seen at 6.45pm (so well dark). Was wearing a fl. jacket
> > but with no lights. As I got closer I noticed he did have lights in the mesh sidepocket of his
> > bag, but hadn't bothered turning them on and putting them on his bike!
>
> I propose the name 'doners' for the group of cyclists comprising 'stealth' and 'exempt
> traffic regs'.

Oops typo, that's 'donor', for future organ donor. (Good of them to keep everything in aerobic
health in advance)
 
"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This illustrates one of the problems with aggressive helmet promotion. It reduces safety to the
> single issue of whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not, and leads to this kind of idiocy.
>

Does aggressive anti-speed campaigning tend to reduce road safety to the single issue of whether
motorists are exceeding the speed limit or not? I am frankly inclined to think it does, and at the
risk of being flamed, have to say it concerns me less whether drivers are exceeding the speed limit
by _modest_ margins than it does whether they are actually looking properly where they are going.
All the accidents or near accidents I have ever had, as a cyclist or motorcyclist, occurred at
speeds well within the speed limits, and all of them due simply to stupid SMIDSY failing to look
properly before proceeding.

Rich
 
Michael MacClancy responded to:
> > It seems to me that in order to be a genuinely stealthy cyclist one needs to put at least £100
> > worth of high power halogen lighting onto ones bike. I find doing so renders me (supposedly)
> > invisible to many drivers.

with:
> Oh, that's interesting. Why don't you give us a few examples of instances when drivers have
> failed to see you with your £100 worth of high power halogen lighting? (You do need to turn them
> on, you know!)

...blah blah blah...

I first thought: "Here's someone who never rides a bike at night." But then came:

> But claims that high power halogen lamps or other visibility enhancing methods make you invisible
> are, in themselves, stupid.

And I realised it's just someone with absolutely no sense of irony. Not American, are you, Michael?

Shortly thereafter I recalled Marc's recent comment: "I have just noticed who I was replying to. you
would say that black was white if there was a chance it would start an argument."

Michael is certainly prone to engaging in long and pointless arguments (any time he can find the
right room). So Michael, how many of those arguments might have come about just because you insisted
on taking something far too literally?

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
It is rather worrying to read that some seem to belive I was actually suggesting that the use of
high power lighting syetms ACTUALLY make one invisisble. What I was suggesting is that whatever
lighting you use or don't, the real problem is not drivers failing to 'see' cyclists but failing to
act appropriately when they do.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where all a driver has to do is simply claim that they didn't
'see' a cyclist in order to be excused all responsibility for cauing death and injury. This applies
even when it is quite clear conspicuity is simply NOT an issue. For example, where they have
overtaken a cyclist then turned left across their path.

Any driver who fails to 'see' a cyclist in normal daylight conditions is almost by definition
driving without due care. Motorists often drive far too fast to be able to stop in the distance they
can actually SEE to be clear and then have the gall to blame the cyclists for not being 'conspicuous
enough. Even at night if one drives at a SPEED APPROPRIATE TO The CONDITIONS one should be able to
see a cyclist quite well, that is what head lights are for...

I accept there is a particular need for cyclists to use a front light in town as a driver cannot
rely on their headlights to see a cyclist approaching a junction the driver is waiting to pull out
of. Unfortunately some drivers simply don't take a proper observation at all, so making any lighting
or high visability clothing somewhat redundant, others simply assume a cyclist will be doing no more
the 8 MPH and yet more simply don't give a toss and will pull out in any case, especially if they
are frustrated by having to wait in heavy traffic.

The use of terms such as 'Stealth Cyclist' are simply part of the ongoing battle to push
responsibility for 'road safety' away from drivers and onto vulnerable road users.

The depths to which the 'motor lobby' and their supporters in the media will go to in order to
promote what Robert Davis in 'Death on the Streets' has called 'The conspicuity con' is
staggering. I even know of cases where drivers have claimed a cyclist they have killed was
'invisible' BECAUSE the cyclist was wearing bright yellow high visbility jackets on the basis it
was sunny and the sun is also yellow, ergo yollow things will be invisible on a sunny day!
Similarly, earlier this year a driver who drove onto a cycle path killing 2 cyclists and ripping
the leg off another had the gall to claim it was the cyclists fault because they were using
powerful front lights that 'confused' them!
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> writes:

>"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:27:49 -0000 someone who may be "Michael MacClancy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> >Why don't you give us a few examples of instances when drivers have failed to see you with your
>> >#100 worth of high power halogen lighting?
>>
>> Use Google to look through postings to this group on the subject.

>Yes, I've been reading this group long enough to know that sometimes drivers fail to see cyclists
>regardless of how much light they're showing. But some drivers also fail to see buses, police cars,
>ambulances and all kinds of other illuminated vehicles because they (the 'some drivers') are
>inattentive or otherwise kind of stupid.

>But claims that high power halogen lamps or other visibility enhancing methods make you invisible
>are, in themselves, stupid. If anyone believes this then they should stop using them. They can then
>at least ride to their deaths with perfect piece of mind.

I suspect that what happens is that a new cyclist has a few dangerous experiences attributed to not
being seen by motorists, and decides to invest ih high visibility clothing, powerful lighting, etc.,
and then discovers to their dismay that motorists still apparently don't see them, but this time
it's worse because they were riding more confidently under the impression that they were more
visible, and therefore get the impression that the lights *caused* the higher rate of nasrt
incidents.

Not so, just a combination of two simple facts. The first is that problem isn't motorist's eyesight,
it's their attention, what they care about. Wear as much illumination as you like, it won't make
motorists care any more about what happens to you. "I didn't see the cyclist" is a euphemism for
"Cyclists are an inferior form of road life and ought to get out of my way."

The second problem is risk compensation. The cyclist who has just invested in all this brighter
flashy stuff feels more visible and safer, and therefore takes less precautions against being
invisible than before. But the behaviour of the motorists doesn't change. So the cyclist is at
greater risk, suffers more nasty incidents, and deduces that extra lighting makes you less visible.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > It seems to me that in order to be a genuinely stealthy cyclist one needs to put at least £100
> > worth of high power halogen lighting onto ones bike. I find doing so renders me (supposedly)
> > invisible to many drivers.
>
> Oh, that's interesting. Why don't you give us a few examples of instances when drivers have failed
> to see you with your £100 worth of high power halogen lighting? (You do need to turn them on, you
> know!) How often does this happen to you? 5 times/ride, every ride, once every 5 rides, once in a
> blue moon, days with the letter 'z' in them? What proportion of drivers fail to see you? 90%, 50%,
> 20%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.005%?

Drivers regularly say they don't see cyclists and, more significantly, _drive_ as if they don't,
despite plenty of lights. It's well and repeatedly documented. Probably 20%, certainly at least 5%,
and it only takes one to kill you. Mind you, against the clutter of lighting on a city street at
rush hour in the rain, the relatively feeble lights of a legally lit bicycle can be hard to pick
out. The roads would probably be a lot safer is there was quite a low cap to the maximum candlepower
it was legal to use on a vehicle in a built up area - the real problem in urban situations in
difficult weather is glare, dazzle and visual clutter, not lack of light.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ .::;===r==\ / /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment. //____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object
oriented programming language. \__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
 
>I even know of cases where drivers have claimed a cyclist they have killed was 'invisible' BECAUSE
>the cyclist was wearing bright yellow high visbility jackets on the basis it was sunny and the sun
>is also yellow, ergo yollow things will be invisible on a sunny day!

Makes sense to me!

It's a shame this is such a serious topic, because otherwise it would be bloody hilarious.

Cheers

Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk
 
In news:[email protected], Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Not so, just a combination of two simple facts. The first is that problem isn't motorist's
> eyesight, it's their attention, what they care about. Wear as much illumination as you like, it
> won't make motorists care any more about what happens to you. "I didn't see the cyclist" is a
> euphemism for "Cyclists are an inferior form of road life and ought to get out of my way."
>
Funny, though, I've definitely noticed people also SMIDSY white vans, presumably on the assumption
that they're a lower form of life. I noticed people joining roundabouts in front of me when I was
circulating in one, as well.

A
 
[email protected] (Chris Malcolm) writes:

> Not so, just a combination of two simple facts. The first is that problem isn't motorist's
> eyesight, it's their attention, what they care about. Wear as much illumination as you like, it
> won't make motorists care any more about what happens to you. "I didn't see the cyclist" is a
> euphemism for "Cyclists are an inferior form of road life and ought to get out of my way."

I think that's unfair. I think what motorists really do, when assessing the risk of bumping into
something, is think about what it might do to their paintwork. Snowploughs and armoured vans have
a relatively low SMIDSY index, even considering their very large visual area. Nobody thinks they
can win an argument with a snow plough, so they don't start one. By contrast, hitting a cyclist is
likely to have little consequence for your paintwork, which is why cyclists have such a high
SMIDSY index.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ .::;===r==\ / /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment. //____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object
oriented programming language. \__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
 
> > > Lecker, lecker.
> > >
> >
> > ? (Do I really want to know I wonder?)
> >
>
> Sorry, it's German for 'tasty, tasty'.

Kann ich bitte de zitrone torte haben?

12 years since I failed GCSE German, and I've still got the magic!

Cheers

Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think that's unfair. I think what motorists really do, when assessing the risk of bumping into
>something, is think about what it might do to their paintwork. Snowploughs and armoured vans have
>a relatively low SMIDSY index, even considering their very large visual area. Nobody thinks they
>can win an argument with a snow plough, so they don't start one. By contrast, hitting a cyclist is
>likely to have little consequence for your paintwork, which is why cyclists have such a high
>SMIDSY index.

Try telling that to the Fire Engine drivers.

SMIDSY appears to be universal, even if the object in question weighs a significant number of tons
more than you do, has flashing lights on top, a loud siren, and it's going at 40 mph.

The local bus company found that their accident rate went down 15% when they required their bus
drivers to turn on their lights even in the middle of the day. Some people apperently just *don't*
look at all. Or they turn their head in the relevant direction, but the image that falls on their
retina never actually makes it to the higher processing centers in their brains (if they actually
have any; the evidence might suggest otherwise).

Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.