Postie with no lights.

[Simon Mason]

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 http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[James Cheney]

"Simon Mason" wrote

> 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.

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Simon Mason wrote:
> 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.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Simon Mason]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > 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 http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Simon Mason wrote:

>>> 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.

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.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Simon Mason]

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

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

 

[Mr R@T \ -Lsqco]

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

>
> 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

 

[Carlos Fandango]

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

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:52:54 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Wafflycathcsdir]

>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
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Simon Mason]

"Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected], Simon Mason <[email protected]> typed:
>
> >
> > 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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Carlos Fandango wrote:
> 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.

<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.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Mason wrote:
> 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

 

[Simon Mason]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > 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 http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected], Simon Mason <[email protected]> typed:
>
> >
> > 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
>

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

 

[Marc]

Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > 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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> 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.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>
>

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.

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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

 

[Marc]

Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong

She didn't look hard enough!