P
- Status
M
Mike Causer
Guest
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:03:50 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
>
> Pedal Reflectors:
>
> 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
Do they define "leading edge" and "trailing edge"? If not, and if your pedals clearly do not have
"edges", how can this be enforceable?
My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front & rear
I don't think Plod will take any action....
Mike
> Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
>
> Pedal Reflectors:
>
> 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
Do they define "leading edge" and "trailing edge"? If not, and if your pedals clearly do not have
"edges", how can this be enforceable?
My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front & rear
I don't think Plod will take any action....
Mike
J
John B
Guest
Mike Causer wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:03:50 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
> >
> > Pedal Reflectors:
> >
> > 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> > 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
>
> Do they define "leading edge" and "trailing edge"? If not, and if your pedals clearly do not have
> "edges", how can this be enforceable?
>
> My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
> ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front &
> rear I don't think Plod will take any action....
Probably not.
But more and more its the insurance companies you need to watch out for.
Even if a car belts you up the rear, the lawyers will soon be arguing that you were partly liable
due to no reflectors. They are already doing so with helmets.
John B
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:03:50 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
> >
> > Pedal Reflectors:
> >
> > 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> > 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
>
> Do they define "leading edge" and "trailing edge"? If not, and if your pedals clearly do not have
> "edges", how can this be enforceable?
>
> My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
> ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front &
> rear I don't think Plod will take any action....
Probably not.
But more and more its the insurance companies you need to watch out for.
Even if a car belts you up the rear, the lawyers will soon be arguing that you were partly liable
due to no reflectors. They are already doing so with helmets.
John B
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:31:43 +0000, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
>> ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front &
>> rear I don't think Plod will take any action....
>Probably not. But more and more its the insurance companies you need to watch out for.
Precisely. And the weasel lawyers (sorry, tautology).
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
>> My solution, both for bent and upright which have the same Ritchey pedals, is to wear reflecting
>> ankle-bands at night. Might not be strictly legal, but combined with two lights each to front &
>> rear I don't think Plod will take any action....
>Probably not. But more and more its the insurance companies you need to watch out for.
Precisely. And the weasel lawyers (sorry, tautology).
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
M
Mike Causer
Guest
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:49:15 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Precisely. And the weasel lawyers (sorry, tautology).
The Weasel Anti-Defamation Society will shortly be in touch with you.....
Hmmm, uprights are better for spotting weasels 'cos you're looking down most of the time, 'bents are
better for spotting owls [1] 'cos you're looking up.
[1] Although owls are outnumbered by Herkies and KC135s in the skies round here (East Cambs/West
Suffolk) at present.
Mike
> Precisely. And the weasel lawyers (sorry, tautology).
The Weasel Anti-Defamation Society will shortly be in touch with you.....
Hmmm, uprights are better for spotting weasels 'cos you're looking down most of the time, 'bents are
better for spotting owls [1] 'cos you're looking up.
[1] Although owls are outnumbered by Herkies and KC135s in the skies round here (East Cambs/West
Suffolk) at present.
Mike
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:46:53 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In this case it would seem that, as well placing your soul in immortal danger, your desire to
>protect your ass (am. correct sp. ****) from discomfort you are contravening the construction & use
>regulations.
Close but no banana. The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1989.
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm>
But IKWYM
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
>In this case it would seem that, as well placing your soul in immortal danger, your desire to
>protect your ass (am. correct sp. ****) from discomfort you are contravening the construction & use
>regulations.
Close but no banana. The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1989.
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm>
But IKWYM
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
J
James Annan
Guest
FortyEight16 wrote:
> I can't think of any clipless pedal system which has reflectors. Time, Look, Speedplay, SPD, SPD-R
> and Egg Beaters don't (TTBOMK)
My Time ATACs actually have reflectors (which they came with). Each one is a fairly flimsy bit of
plastic which attaches on the outer end of the pedal, and wraps round the body front and back (but
not touching the pedal there, just freely hanging in the air). they are a bit fragile and I'v broken
off one 'arm' - this is only on road use too, they wouldn't last long if bashed on rocks and
crashed. Still, I'm not complaining.
James
> I can't think of any clipless pedal system which has reflectors. Time, Look, Speedplay, SPD, SPD-R
> and Egg Beaters don't (TTBOMK)
My Time ATACs actually have reflectors (which they came with). Each one is a fairly flimsy bit of
plastic which attaches on the outer end of the pedal, and wraps round the body front and back (but
not touching the pedal there, just freely hanging in the air). they are a bit fragile and I'v broken
off one 'arm' - this is only on road use too, they wouldn't last long if bashed on rocks and
crashed. Still, I'm not complaining.
James
A
Andrew Sweetman
Guest
FortyEight16 <[email protected]>
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Its not just bent's, my SPD clipless pedals dont have reflectors,
although
> > my shoes do, only at the back.
>
> I can't think of any clipless pedal system which has reflectors. Time, Look, Speedplay, SPD, SPD-R
> and Egg Beaters don't (TTBOMK)
>
The old Look spud-u-likes (Moab etc) used to have tapped holes front & rear for attaching reflectors
(not that any of the Look stckists stocked the reflectors)
Andrew
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Its not just bent's, my SPD clipless pedals dont have reflectors,
although
> > my shoes do, only at the back.
>
> I can't think of any clipless pedal system which has reflectors. Time, Look, Speedplay, SPD, SPD-R
> and Egg Beaters don't (TTBOMK)
>
The old Look spud-u-likes (Moab etc) used to have tapped holes front & rear for attaching reflectors
(not that any of the Look stckists stocked the reflectors)
Andrew
S
Spencer Bullen
Guest
For that matter, how do SPD's comply? I know you can get a clip in reflector, but that takes up one
side of a double sided pedal. I've got to say, there are very few police officers who would stick
you on for such a breach.
T.T.F.N.
SPENNY
> Writing my submission for the RVLR consultation I was reminded of the following:
>
> Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
>
> Pedal Reflectors:
>
> 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
> 3. Angles of visibility: Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly
> visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to
> the rear
>
> Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
>
> Guy
side of a double sided pedal. I've got to say, there are very few police officers who would stick
you on for such a breach.
T.T.F.N.
SPENNY
> Writing my submission for the RVLR consultation I was reminded of the following:
>
> Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
>
> Pedal Reflectors:
>
> 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
> 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
> 3. Angles of visibility: Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly
> visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to
> the rear
>
> Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
>
> Guy
K
Kit Wolf
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:21:54 +0000, "Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A solution to the rear-facing reflector problem would be to put a reflector on the bottom end of
> >a heel-clip, which I know some recumbenteers use (a sort of L-shaped piece of bent metal, with
> >your heel in the bend of the 'L').
>
> And which would still not be "clearly visible from the rear."
Well, not for the whole time, it's true. I reckon reflectors to the sides of the pedals (the first
solution I suggested) would be visible most of the time, but glare might be a problem as on my
'bent as I have to look past the pedals to see the road. There's one way to find out, but it'll
have to wait.
> The law, in this case, is an ass.
>
That sounds almost as if you want it to be so? I can't quite believe it's impossible to comply,
though I agree it's not straightforward.
Kit
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:21:54 +0000, "Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A solution to the rear-facing reflector problem would be to put a reflector on the bottom end of
> >a heel-clip, which I know some recumbenteers use (a sort of L-shaped piece of bent metal, with
> >your heel in the bend of the 'L').
>
> And which would still not be "clearly visible from the rear."
Well, not for the whole time, it's true. I reckon reflectors to the sides of the pedals (the first
solution I suggested) would be visible most of the time, but glare might be a problem as on my
'bent as I have to look past the pedals to see the road. There's one way to find out, but it'll
have to wait.
> The law, in this case, is an ass.
>
That sounds almost as if you want it to be so? I can't quite believe it's impossible to comply,
though I agree it's not straightforward.
Kit
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On 8 Feb 2003 18:19:39 -0800, [email protected] (Kit Wolf) wrote:
>> The law, in this case, is an ass.
>That sounds almost as if you want it to be so? I can't quite believe it's impossible to comply,
>though I agree it's not straightforward.
There is a consultation at the moment regarding changes to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations.
They are suggesting that we be allowed to fit LEDs on the pedals and wheels (where did they get
*that* from?) but the recommended options (a) don't take account of the pedal reflector issue (which
also affects clipless pedals) and (b) still require someone riding with a Cateye Stadium to have a
BS Approved lamp (like the Wonder Light - remember them?) as well. Both positions are absurd.
As to pedal reflectors on the 'bent, even if I could easily mount a reflector on the pedal which was
visible to the rear of the pedal, it would probably not be "plainly visible" from behind the bike
because my body would be in the way. And if I were riding a fully-faired cycle, like the Leitra, it
would be completely impossible.
On the wedgie I'm not required to have pedal reflectors because it was made before October 1985. But
I wear reflective leg bands anyway when riding at night, which are far larger than any pedal
reflector and visible through 360º. But would still be illegal if the bike were a year newer.
In any case, for the law to require something which is difficult if not impossible to achieve, and
which requires the use of accessories not available on the open market, doesn't do much to help
respect for the law. For the law to be respected, it must be respectable.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
>> The law, in this case, is an ass.
>That sounds almost as if you want it to be so? I can't quite believe it's impossible to comply,
>though I agree it's not straightforward.
There is a consultation at the moment regarding changes to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations.
They are suggesting that we be allowed to fit LEDs on the pedals and wheels (where did they get
*that* from?) but the recommended options (a) don't take account of the pedal reflector issue (which
also affects clipless pedals) and (b) still require someone riding with a Cateye Stadium to have a
BS Approved lamp (like the Wonder Light - remember them?) as well. Both positions are absurd.
As to pedal reflectors on the 'bent, even if I could easily mount a reflector on the pedal which was
visible to the rear of the pedal, it would probably not be "plainly visible" from behind the bike
because my body would be in the way. And if I were riding a fully-faired cycle, like the Leitra, it
would be completely impossible.
On the wedgie I'm not required to have pedal reflectors because it was made before October 1985. But
I wear reflective leg bands anyway when riding at night, which are far larger than any pedal
reflector and visible through 360º. But would still be illegal if the bike were a year newer.
In any case, for the law to require something which is difficult if not impossible to achieve, and
which requires the use of accessories not available on the open market, doesn't do much to help
respect for the law. For the law to be respected, it must be respectable.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
J
Jim Price
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
<snipped>
> Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
Oops, sorry, I just read the rest of the thread...
JimP
<snipped>
> Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
Oops, sorry, I just read the rest of the thread...
JimP
J
Jim Price
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On stalks long enough to be seen past the rider's body. Oops! Now you have to redefine "leading
> edge" and "trailing edge" with respect ot the extensions, not the original pedals.
Um, methinks perhaps if the stalks stick out sideways past the rider's shoes as much as the pedal
reflectors on a "normal" bike stick out under the rider's shoes (about the depth of the pedal), then
they would be as legal (and about as useful) as those on a "normal" bike.
Leading edge on a pedal I would guess as being the one facing forward when you are actually riding,
so if the pedal is at 90 degrees to its "normal" orientation, the leading edge will have changed by
the same 90 degrees, so no change of definition would be required IMHO. If you insisted on calling
the leading edge what becomes the upper edge when riding a bent, I would ask you to demonstrate your
vertical takeoff capability. (Same argument for the trailing edge on a reversable pedal, only
replace "vertical takeoff" with "oil well drilling")
All of this is about interpretation, really. The bike itself could not be deemed illegal if you just
put a BS reflector on every face of the pedal, but then you'd be back to the issue of uselessness of
a reflector under your shoe. Re-reading that sentence, perhaps it could be known as a BS reflector
where BS does not mean British Standard.
My single sided look pedals on my homebuilt 'bent have two reflectors, but even when I'm not riding
the thing, the reflectors are always pointing in a pointless direction...
JimP
> On stalks long enough to be seen past the rider's body. Oops! Now you have to redefine "leading
> edge" and "trailing edge" with respect ot the extensions, not the original pedals.
Um, methinks perhaps if the stalks stick out sideways past the rider's shoes as much as the pedal
reflectors on a "normal" bike stick out under the rider's shoes (about the depth of the pedal), then
they would be as legal (and about as useful) as those on a "normal" bike.
Leading edge on a pedal I would guess as being the one facing forward when you are actually riding,
so if the pedal is at 90 degrees to its "normal" orientation, the leading edge will have changed by
the same 90 degrees, so no change of definition would be required IMHO. If you insisted on calling
the leading edge what becomes the upper edge when riding a bent, I would ask you to demonstrate your
vertical takeoff capability. (Same argument for the trailing edge on a reversable pedal, only
replace "vertical takeoff" with "oil well drilling")
All of this is about interpretation, really. The bike itself could not be deemed illegal if you just
put a BS reflector on every face of the pedal, but then you'd be back to the issue of uselessness of
a reflector under your shoe. Re-reading that sentence, perhaps it could be known as a BS reflector
where BS does not mean British Standard.
My single sided look pedals on my homebuilt 'bent have two reflectors, but even when I'm not riding
the thing, the reflectors are always pointing in a pointless direction...
JimP
I
Ianb
Guest
"Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:03:50 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Writing my submission for the RVLR consultation I was reminded of the following:
> >
> > Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
> >
> > Pedal Reflectors:
> >
> > 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and
> > the trailing edge of each pedal
> > 3. Angles of visibility: Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly
> > visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible
> > to the rear
> >
> > Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
>
Not just on a bent, how often do we fail to comply when on an upright? If I am freewheeling one
of my legs will be straight with the heel at its lowest point thus obstructing sight of that
rear reflector. The other pedal being near highest point will be hidden by my Pannier bag. Also
when pedalling with full "ankling" action the heel/toe will often get in the way, the pedal will
also get well away from the horizontal. I don't think that conventional "prism" reflectors are
effective much more than 5 degrees away from the light source & viewers eyes - anyone else got
ideas about this?
--
IanB
swap my names around to reply to me
news
[email protected]...> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:03:50 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Writing my submission for the RVLR consultation I was reminded of the following:
> >
> > Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989; Schedule 20 Part 1:
> >
> > Pedal Reflectors:
> >
> > 1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal 2. Position-(a) Longitudinal: On the leading edge and
> > the trailing edge of each pedal
> > 3. Angles of visibility: Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly
> > visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible
> > to the rear
> >
> > Your starter for ten and no conferring: how do you comply when riding a 'bent?
>
Not just on a bent, how often do we fail to comply when on an upright? If I am freewheeling one
of my legs will be straight with the heel at its lowest point thus obstructing sight of that
rear reflector. The other pedal being near highest point will be hidden by my Pannier bag. Also
when pedalling with full "ankling" action the heel/toe will often get in the way, the pedal will
also get well away from the horizontal. I don't think that conventional "prism" reflectors are
effective much more than 5 degrees away from the light source & viewers eyes - anyone else got
ideas about this?
--
IanB
swap my names around to reply to me
H
Howard
Guest
> Even if a car belts you up the rear, the lawyers will soon be arguing that you were partly liable
> due to no reflectors. They are already doing so with helmets.
>
> John B
This is all part of the long history of drivers pushing the blame for the consequences of their own
actions onto others.
A fundamental question to ask is 'What the hell do we need reflectors, (or even rear lights) for?
After all cars have effective headlights.
The short answer is that most drivers 'overdrive' the limitations of their headlights. Ie. they do
not drive at a speed that allows them to stop well within the distance they can actually SEE to be
clear, instead they rely on being able to see lights and/or reflectors.
Of course this does not take into account of the fact that many hazards on the road do not have
lights or reflectors, road debris, sheep, pedestrians...
Drivers also try the same trick in fog, on motorways, at 80 MPH... You know the rest.
The CTC campaigned on this issue for years arguing that a vehicle should always be driven at a speed
that allows the driver to actually SEE what is ahead. Naturally, drivers like to go much faster then
is allowed for this, especially at night.
Regards,
Howard.
> due to no reflectors. They are already doing so with helmets.
>
> John B
This is all part of the long history of drivers pushing the blame for the consequences of their own
actions onto others.
A fundamental question to ask is 'What the hell do we need reflectors, (or even rear lights) for?
After all cars have effective headlights.
The short answer is that most drivers 'overdrive' the limitations of their headlights. Ie. they do
not drive at a speed that allows them to stop well within the distance they can actually SEE to be
clear, instead they rely on being able to see lights and/or reflectors.
Of course this does not take into account of the fact that many hazards on the road do not have
lights or reflectors, road debris, sheep, pedestrians...
Drivers also try the same trick in fog, on motorways, at 80 MPH... You know the rest.
The CTC campaigned on this issue for years arguing that a vehicle should always be driven at a speed
that allows the driver to actually SEE what is ahead. Naturally, drivers like to go much faster then
is allowed for this, especially at night.
Regards,
Howard.
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
Richard wrote:
>> and as a cyclist I feel its my duty to make an effort to be easily visible so drivers can easily
>> do the same for me.
> Why do you feel that making it easy for them is *your* duty? They took on the responsibility of
> driving a potentially lethal machine. It may be politeness to make it easy for them (it may also
> be the first steps on the slippery slope of making it compulsory...) but I find it hard to see
> that it's a duty.
I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that the
consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
high-viz clothing and batteries.
--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>> and as a cyclist I feel its my duty to make an effort to be easily visible so drivers can easily
>> do the same for me.
> Why do you feel that making it easy for them is *your* duty? They took on the responsibility of
> driving a potentially lethal machine. It may be politeness to make it easy for them (it may also
> be the first steps on the slippery slope of making it compulsory...) but I find it hard to see
> that it's a duty.
I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that the
consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
high-viz clothing and batteries.
--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
F
Fortyeight16
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard wrote:
>
> >> and as a cyclist I feel its my duty to make an effort to be easily visible so drivers can
> >> easily do the same for me.
>
> > Why do you feel that making it easy for them is *your* duty? They took on the responsibility of
> > driving a potentially lethal machine. It may be politeness to make it easy for them (it may also
> > be the first steps on the slippery slope of making it compulsory...) but I find it hard to see
> > that it's a duty.
>
> I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that
> the consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
> high-viz clothing and batteries.
As many cyclists are drivers too then it's pure self interest to make it easy for 'them'
to spot 'us'
news:[email protected]...
> Richard wrote:
>
> >> and as a cyclist I feel its my duty to make an effort to be easily visible so drivers can
> >> easily do the same for me.
>
> > Why do you feel that making it easy for them is *your* duty? They took on the responsibility of
> > driving a potentially lethal machine. It may be politeness to make it easy for them (it may also
> > be the first steps on the slippery slope of making it compulsory...) but I find it hard to see
> > that it's a duty.
>
> I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that
> the consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
> high-viz clothing and batteries.
As many cyclists are drivers too then it's pure self interest to make it easy for 'them'
to spot 'us'
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
FortyEight16 wrote:
>> I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that
>> the consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
>> high-viz clothing and batteries.
> it's pure self interest to make it easy for 'them' to spot 'us'
Which was my point
--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>> I don't think I have any obligation to make it easy for them. And if it wasn't for the fact that
>> the consequences of not doing so are that some clueless **** will kill me, I'd save a fortune on
>> high-viz clothing and batteries.
> it's pure self interest to make it easy for 'them' to spot 'us'
Which was my point
--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
- Status
