Postie with no lights.

"Simon Mason" wrote

Quoted message said:

The argument about him having no lights on was a dead duck according to

the

Quoted message said:

police. It was *her* fault despite this. What's more he is claiming compensation from her
insurance for the injury he sustained in the

accident.

There might be a difference between "having no lights" and having them but not using them.

Under PUWER (provision and use of work equipment regs) the employer has an absolute duty to ensure
the safe and efficient operation of all equipment. This definitely extends to cycles and you would
think that lights would be included in that.

The case was Stark v the Post Office. S was a postman who was injured when the stirrup of the front
brake of his bicycle broke. He claimed compensation from the Post Office and the court initially
dismissed that but he appealed on the grounds that the obligation in PUWER was absolute and he
succeeded. Arguments raised by employers about the reasonableness of maintenance programmes or
inspection systems were irrelevant as it was an absolute duty.

Jim

Simon Mason said:

I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting at
a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a postman on
a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the incident was reported to the police and the
upshot was, she was done for due care.

Harsh but probably fair. Was there street lighting? Was Pat wearing a high-viz jacket? If so the
marginal difference made by a light would be small. All the same, I'm sure her insurers will claim
contributory negligence - and I would be talking to the Post Office about why they sent Pat out
without a light.

Unless of course it was daylight, in which case no wonder :-)

Disclaimer: I would never ride a bike at nioght (or even in half-light) without lights.

--
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.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting
at a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a
postman on a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the incident was reported to the police
and the upshot was, she was done for due care.

Harsh but probably fair. Was there street lighting? Was Pat wearing a high-viz jacket? If so the
marginal difference made by a light would be small. All the same, I'm sure her insurers will claim
contributory negligence - and I would be talking to the Post Office about why they sent Pat out
without a light.

I would be very annoyed at having points on my licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit cyclist
before I pulled out. My dad did the same thing, but managed to stop in time, but I don't see why
she got fined at all. They should have given the cyclist a warning ( he should have refused to go
out until his bike was fitted with lights) and sued the Post Office for sending out their staff on
illegal vehicles.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Simon Mason said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting
at a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a
postman on a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the incident was reported to the police
and the upshot was, she was done for due care.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Harsh but probably fair. Was there street lighting? Was Pat wearing a high-viz jacket? If so the
marginal difference made by a light would be small. All the same, I'm sure her insurers will
claim contributory negligence - and I would be talking to the Post Office about why they sent Pat
out without a light.

Quoted message said:

I would be very annoyed at having points on my licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit
cyclist before I pulled out. My dad did the same thing, but managed to stop in time, but I don't
see why she got fined at all. They should have given the cyclist a warning ( he should have
refused to go out until his bike was fitted with lights) and sued the Post Office for sending out
their staff on illegal vehicles.

Consider: drivers who kill cyclists who are doing nothing wrong get charged with driving without due
care. For plod to charge this woman would indicate that she must, in the opinion of plod (who was
there) have been doing at least /something/ wrong.

--
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.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b1e6rf$i0h$1

Quoted message said:

Consider: drivers who kill cyclists who are doing nothing wrong get

charged

Quoted message said:

with driving without due care. For plod to charge this woman would

indicate

Quoted message said:

that she must, in the opinion of plod (who was there) have been doing at least /something/ wrong.

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights? Simon

In "]news:[email hidden], Simon Mason <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights? Simon

Driving off without her *own* car lights being switched on, or just not looking properly?

I obviously cannot speak for procedures in the North, but having worked in Royal Mail myself and
knowing many friends who have also been thus employed I can confirm that posties on bikes round this
way nearly always wear hi-viz uniform (I think it is a safety requirement) this stuff is full of
scotchlite strips so even if the bike did not have sufficient lighting I would have thought it would
be very difficult *not* to notice a postie on their bike!

Alex

A colleague of mine who used to work for the post office, said that they refused to issue their
riders with helmets - and if they were to buy their own, they had to be red !

Its one thing to ensure that safety equipment is working, but another not to issue basic safety
equipment in the first place.

C

Simon Mason said:

I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting at
a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a postman on
a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the incident was reported to the police and the
upshot was, she was done for due care.

The argument about him having no lights on was a dead duck according to the police. It was *her*
fault despite this. What's more he is claiming compensation from her insurance for the injury he
sustained in the accident.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

A colleague of mine who used to work for the post office, said that they refused to issue their
riders with helmets - and if they were to buy their own, they had to be red !

The posties who cycle round my bit of deepest rural Norfolk are all in dark clothing 🙁

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

"Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Simon Mason <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights? Simon

Driving off without her *own* car lights being switched on, or just not looking properly?

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but he was approaching from the side and her lights
would not illuminate his hi-vis if indeed he was wearing any at all, the details which I don't
know. Simon

Carlos Fandango said:

A colleague of mine who used to work for the post office, said that they refused to issue their
riders with helmets - and if they were to buy their own, they had to be red !

Quoted message said:

Its one thing to ensure that safety equipment is working, but another not to issue basic safety
equipment in the first place.

<whoop!> <whoop!> <whoop!>

Warning, potential helmet thread detected - take cover immediately!

This thread is being surrounded with a Zone of Indifference by highly trained Usenet gnomes with
flameproof suits. For your comfort and convenience the word helmet will be replaced with
"Polystyrene Deflector Beanie."

Move along, now, nothing to see here, move along........

--
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.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

Simon Mason said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights?

She still should have seen him. Drivers should not proceed if they do not have sufficient vision and
lighting to be able to see a cyclist with no lights. In these kind of incidents, the driver can only
either not be paying due care and attention (including driving too fast) or has inadequate eyesight.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights?

She still should have seen him. Drivers should not proceed if they do not have sufficient vision
and lighting to be able to see a cyclist with no lights. In these kind of incidents, the driver
can only either not be paying due care and attention (including driving too fast) or has
inadequate eyesight.

I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's wotsit, 'cos I want to show him both sides of the
argument in this thread.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

"Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Simon Mason <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights? Simon

Driving off without her *own* car lights being switched on, or just not looking properly?

I obviously cannot speak for procedures in the North, but having worked in Royal Mail myself and
knowing many friends who have also been thus

employed

Quoted message said:

I can confirm that posties on bikes round this way nearly always wear

hi-viz

Quoted message said:

uniform (I think it is a safety requirement) this stuff is full of scotchlite strips so even if
the bike did not have sufficient lighting I would have thought it would be very difficult *not* to
notice a postie on their bike!

Alex

If she's pulling out of a turning and the bike is coming from the side her lights won't illuminate
the relectives.

Simon Mason said:

would be very annoyed at having points on my licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit cyclist
before I pulled out.

Would you feel the same about having points on your licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit
pedestrian before you pulled out?

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong if she genuinely couldn't see him due to his lack of
lights?

She still should have seen him. Drivers should not proceed if they do not have sufficient vision
and lighting to be able to see a cyclist with no lights. In these kind of incidents, the driver
can only either not be paying due care and attention (including driving too fast) or has
inadequate eyesight.

~PB

What you write can be interpreted as nonsense. None of us has the full facts. It might have been too
dark to see a cyclist without lights. You can't blame someone for not being equipped with an
infra-red night vision system.

Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

None of us has the full facts. It might have been too dark to see a cyclist without lights. You
can't blame someone for not being equipped with an infra-red night vision system.

True enough - but the plod on the scene, who evidently /was/ in posession of the facts, thought the
woman had driven without due care.

--
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.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

None of us has the full facts. It might have been too dark to see a cyclist without lights. You
can't blame someone for not being equipped with an infra-red night vision system.

True enough - but the plod on the scene, who evidently /was/ in posession

of

Quoted message said:

the facts, thought the woman had driven without due care.

--
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.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

My reading of Simon's original post is that she has only been charged but not yet found guilty. The
police might yet be found to be wrong. I don't want to excuse the lady if she genuinely was at fault
but Peter Biggs wrote

"Drivers should not proceed if they do not have sufficient vision and lighting to be able to see a
cyclist with no lights".

That is blatant nonsense. It implies they should stay at home in the dark.

"Marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

would be very annoyed at having points on my licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit
cyclist before I pulled out.

Would you feel the same about having points on your licence if I genuinely couldn't see an unlit
pedestrian before you pulled out?

There's potentially a bit of a difference between a walking or running pedestrian and a rapid
cyclist. The pedestrian would be a lot closer and, therefore, more visible.

Michael MacClancy

Simon Mason said:

Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong

She didn't look hard enough!