Postie with no lights.

[Michael Macclan]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong
>
> She didn't look hard enough!

.... with the IR night vision system standard in all decent cars nowadays! Haven't you got one? ;-)

Michael MacClancy

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Marc wrote:
> 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?

Where would you find a court which would convict underthose circumstances?

--
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

 

[Marc]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

There is potentially a huge difference between all sorts of things, that doesn't alter the fact that
a pedestrian is the same size as a cyclist and to knock over a cyclist you have to be exactly the
same distance away from them ( ie 0 distance), as you do to knock over a pedestrian.

 

[Marc]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[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?
>
> Where would you find a court which would convict underthose circumstances?

I think if you gave the court the body of a pedestrian and a driver who said " I didn't see him,
because he didn't have any lights" you would get a conviction. It may only be a fine and a slap on
the wrist, goolies would stay attachd, but a conviction nevertheless.

 

[Marc]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong
> >
> > She didn't look hard enough!
>
> .... with the IR night vision system standard in all decent cars nowadays! Haven't you got
> one? ;-)

I don't need one, I look hard enough.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps they shouldn't drive when they can't see where they're going. Headlights come in handy. If
car/road lights don't illuminate where they're going sufficiently (eg. on a bend), they should slow
down or stop.

~PB

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> 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

Frantic semantics. Simon's post 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." I submit that the plod on the scene would not have pressed charges had there plainly
been no case to answer, as plod are very averse to filling in forms unless they have to.

--
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:
>
> > 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
>
> Frantic semantics. Simon's post 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." I submit that the plod on the scene would not have pressed charges had there
> plainly been no case to answer, as plod are very averse to filling in
forms
> unless they have to.
>
> --
> 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'm wounded to the quick! Those weren't Simon's words of wisdom, they were mine - unless I'm guilty
of unwitting plagiarism (I'm often accused of unwitting witlessness )

I agree that the evidence presented here points towards her guilt. My comments have been aimed at
the stupidity of some of the anti-driver quips.

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> There is potentially a huge difference between all sorts of things, that doesn't alter the fact
> that a pedestrian is the same size as a cyclist and to knock over a cyclist you have to be exactly
> the same distance away from them ( ie 0 distance), as you do to knock over a pedestrian.

Not at the time you start your move. A cyclist can move a lot further than a pedestrian in the time
it takes for the driver to look in both directions. Anyway, this is moving OT. I've said elsewhere
that the evidence points to the woman being at fault. It's useless us discussing the physiology of
night vision.

Michael MacClancy

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Mason wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough. You're making us think ...I might go back to just answering questions on bits of
bikes because these kind of debates make my brain hurt!

A tricky bit is whether it's fair to expect drivers to see cyclists without lights on unlit roads.

But in bulit up urban areas at least, I have no doubt that a motorists should be able to see
cyclists with or without lights if they stick to a reasonable speed. Of course cyclists should use
lights but I don't think those who don't deserve capital punishment.

~PB

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps they shouldn't drive when they can't see where they're going. Headlights come in handy. If
> car/road lights don't illuminate where they're going sufficiently (eg. on a bend), they should
> slow down or stop.
>
> ~PB
>

You should read everything I write. I've already rebuffed that one. He might have been coming from
the side. Ever seen a car with headlights in the side?

Michael MacClancy

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong
> > >
> > > She didn't look hard enough!
> >
> > .... with the IR night vision system standard in all decent cars
nowadays!
> > Haven't you got one? ;-)
>
> I don't need one, I look hard enough.

I don't see what looking tough enough has to do with it ;-) Unless you're a medical oddity I'm sure
that you can't see everything in the dark.

 

[Michael Macclan]

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Fair enough. You're making us think ...I might go back to just answering questions on bits of
> bikes because these kind of debates make my brain hurt!
>
> A tricky bit is whether it's fair to expect drivers to see cyclists without lights on unlit roads.
>
> But in bulit up urban areas at least, I have no doubt that a motorists should be able to see
> cyclists with or without lights if they stick to a reasonable speed. Of course cyclists should use
> lights but I don't think those who don't deserve capital punishment.
>
> ~PB
>

I think this is an excellent balanced view of the situation.

Michael MacClancy

 

[A.Lee]

Simon Mason <[email protected]> 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.

It is rare for people to tell the true story when they think they may be even slightly at fault, and
your story is secondhand as well, so I wouldnt come to any conclusions at all about it. It may have
been dusk/dawn, when there was enough light to ride without lights,but the cars still have their
headlights on,the driver may have just not seen the rider, and claimed he had no lights, and so
on.Unless you were there,and saw it yourself, you cant really put the blame on anyone.

Alan.

--
Change the minus to 'plus' if you want to reply by e-mail! http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling
in the North Midlands,

 

[Marc]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > > > Yes, but what was it she was doing wrong
> > > >
> > > > She didn't look hard enough!
> > >
> > > .... with the IR night vision system standard in all decent cars
> nowadays!
> > > Haven't you got one? ;-)
> >
> > I don't need one, I look hard enough.
>
> I don't see what looking tough enough has to do with it ;-)

Yeah Yeah! What was that bit about looking stupid? Or was it ... What was that bit about looking,
stupid? ;-)

>Unless you're a medical oddity I'm sure that you can't see everything in the dark.

So you drive slower....

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

Marc wrote:
> 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?

Depends where you were at the time I was pulling out, but I'd think it pretty unjust whatever the
situation.

(OK, OK, I knew what you *meant*)

A

 

[Pete Biggs]

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

I don't mean that they should be able to see all cyclists everywhere including the other side of
the planet. I mean they should be able to see cyclists riding in a normal fashion in and near
their path.

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> He might have been coming from the side. Ever seen a car with headlights in the side?

The beams from car headlights do splay out and light up a certain amount of approaches at
side-turnings so you should be able to see cyclists in advance coming from the side when they are
behaving normally (and that includes them giving way to you when appropriate).

Of course cyclists can be at fault and responsible for accidents (eg. darting out just in front you)
but we're talking about the general principles of blame despite cyclists not having lights. A
cyclist not having lights is not enough of an excuse in itself not to see him. The cyclist has to be
doing something else wrong.

(My comments were written purely to make a general point. I do not have any particular interest in
the case mentioned. I treated it as a general example just for the sake of convenience).

~PB

 

[Danny Colyer]

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.

So come on Simon, it's clear that we really need to know what the ambient lighting conditions were
like if we're to make any reasonable judgement.

I can think of plenty of places I've ridden at night where no motorist could possibly be expected to
see an unlit cyclist approaching from the side - unless they're using the IR viewer that Michael has
surmised Marc must have.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[Eatmorepies]

"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.
>
That seems a bit silly.

Picture this; I am in a car in a side road, I look right and can't see a cyclist I reason that;

a) There is no cyclist.
b) The cyclist has no lights on.

You suggest that case (b) applies at all times.

Thus I can only pull out if I can see a cyclist.

Seems a bit odd that.

John

 

[Marc]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > But in bulit up urban areas at least, I have no doubt that a motorists should be able to see
> > cyclists with or without lights if they stick to a reasonable speed. Of course cyclists should
> > use lights but I don't think those who don't deserve capital punishment.
> >
> > ~PB
> >
>
> I think this is an excellent balanced view of the situation.

Works for me, with the proviso that the cyclist complies with, the right side of the road/one way
street/pavement/give way etc...