Stealth cyclist

  • Thread starter Wafflycathcsdir
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
Tonight I was in the c*r as I dropped son & heir off at his club and then went on to do the grocery
shopping. On the way home, I was stopped at some traffic lights on red at the front of the queue. I
was signalling to turn left at the lights as the lights were at a T junction.

The lights turned to green, so I got into first & started to pull away to do the *immediate* left
turn - the one I was signalling to do. Then - up the inside (cycling in the gutter) came a
stealth cyclist, no lights to be seen, and turned left as I was signalling to do and just about
to make the turn.

AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!

I wouldn't care, but he was wearing Lycra ;-) He was also in dark clothing, no lights to be seen, no
reflectives and on a race bike, rather than the usual MTBs of the standard stealth cyclist ;-)

AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

I don't jump lights, but if I'd been impatient at the lights, the stealth cyclist coming up the
inside of a line of left turning vehicles (this particular lane is for a left turn) could well have
been knocked off. Next time he decides to do this in the dark, no lights, up the inside of a line of
traffic waiting to turn right, he might just not make it :(

As well as that sort of action really tees me off as it gets cyclists a bad name.

AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

Rant mode off - normal service now resumed

Cheers, helen s
p.s. I'll bet he was wearing bibtights! ;-)

AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!

~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On 06 Mar 2003 19:51:20 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
(wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote this:-

>The lights turned to green, so I got into first & started to pull away to do the *immediate* left
>turn - the one I was signalling to do.

>no reflectives

You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for light
to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle lighting
regulations.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
S

Sabineuk

Guest
David Hansen said:

>>no reflectives
>
>You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for light
>to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle lighting
>regulations.

Dunno about you, but I normally find that reflective cycling gear shows up pretty well under
streetlighting. Given that Helen was, er, stopped at traffic lights then it's a fair assumption that
there was streetlighting too - traffic signals on otherwise dark streets are not common.

That said, would you care to say how smart-ass remarks about vehicle lighting help address the
essential point, that folk on bikes at night without some form of visibility aid are asking
for trouble?

John
 
F

Frank

Guest
"SabineUK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> David Hansen said:
>
> >>no reflectives
> >
> >You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for
> >light to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle
> >lighting regulations.
>
> Dunno about you, but I normally find that reflective cycling gear shows up pretty well under
> streetlighting. Given that Helen was, er, stopped at traffic lights then it's a fair assumption
> that there was streetlighting too - traffic signals on otherwise dark streets are not common.
>
> That said, would you care to say how smart-ass remarks about vehicle lighting help address the
> essential point, that folk on bikes at night without some form of visibility aid are asking for
> trouble?
>
I posted the other week how much I thought it was good to wear bright yellow tops at night (with
lights) and I still do but tonight I was in my car pulling out on to a dimly lit road and A cyclist
coming toward me was very hard to see, it was only as he went past I could see he was wearing yellow
and had a back light.
 
J

James G

Guest
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "SabineUK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > David Hansen said:
> >
> > >>no reflectives
> > >
> > >You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for
> > >light to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle
> > >lighting regulations.
> >
> > Dunno about you, but I normally find that reflective cycling gear shows up pretty well under
> > streetlighting. Given that Helen was, er, stopped at traffic lights then it's a fair assumption
> > that there was streetlighting too - traffic signals on otherwise dark streets are not common.
> >
> > That said, would you care to say how smart-ass remarks about vehicle lighting help address the
> > essential point, that folk on bikes at night without some form of visibility aid are asking for
> > trouble?
> >
> I posted the other week how much I thought it was good to wear bright
yellow
> tops at night (with lights) and I still do but tonight I was in my car pulling out on to a dimly
> lit road and A cyclist coming toward me was very hard to see, it was only as he went past I could
> see he was wearing yellow and had a back light.
>
IMO flouro yellow is pointless unless it has white light directly shining on it, either from car
head lights or white street lamps, if you're lucky find any. So unlit flourocyclists approaching
from anywhere other than the front of a motor vehicle are liable to go unseen
 
J

James Annan

Guest
"james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> IMO flouro yellow is pointless unless it has white light directly shining on it, either from car
> head lights or white street lamps, if you're lucky find any. So unlit flourocyclists approaching
> from anywhere other than the front of a motor vehicle are liable to go unseen

I nearly posted about this when I saw it mentioned in a previous thread. I'm not sure that even
'white light' is enough, the fluo colouring is only really any use under twilight conditions when
the UV component of _daylight_ is converted to visible. I think that artificial lights don't have
enough UV to help.

AIUI, BICBW, HAND, etc

James
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
>You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for light
>to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle lighting
>regulations.
>

As we *both* turned left - he was now infront of me, David, as he had zoomed up the inside - so at
that point I could see he had no reflectives.

~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
>Dunno about you, but I normally find that reflective cycling gear shows up pretty well under
>streetlighting. Given that Helen was, er, stopped at traffic lights then it's a fair assumption
>that there was streetlighting too - traffic signals on otherwise dark streets are not common.

Quite.

>That said, would you care to say how smart-ass remarks about vehicle lighting help address the
>essential point, that folk on bikes at night without some form of visibility aid are asking
>for trouble?

Quite. I'm a driver, I'm a cyclist. I *love* cycling - but would not dream of cycling at night in
the manner this particular cyclist was - unlit, very poorly visible and stright up the inside of a
line of traffic all waiting to turn left.

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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
B

Bob Flemming

Guest
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:41:05 +0000, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06 Mar 2003 19:51:20 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
>(wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote this:-
>
>>The lights turned to green, so I got into first & started to pull away to do the *immediate* left
>>turn - the one I was signalling to do.
>
>>no reflectives
>
>You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for light
>to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle lighting
>regulations.

Simple fact is this: even if this cyclist had been lit like a Vegas neon, it wouldn't have made a
blind bit of difference in the light of traffic laws - he overtook on the left, at traffic lights,
passing a stationary car, to turn left into the motorists path. Not a cat in hells chance. His put
his own life at risk. His choice.

bob
 
M

Marc

Guest
wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

> The lights turned to green, so I got into first & started to pull away to do the *immediate* left
> turn - the one I was signalling to do. Then - up the inside (cycling in the gutter) came a stealth
> cyclist, no lights to be seen, and turned left as I was signalling to do and just about to make
> the turn.
>
>
> AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!
>
> I wouldn't care, but he was wearing Lycra ;-) He was also in dark clothing, no lights to be seen,
> no reflectives and on a race bike, rather than the usual MTBs of the standard stealth cyclist ;-)
>
> AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth capabilities
,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations required before
setting off.

--
Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
[email protected] (marc) writes:
> Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
> capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations
> required before setting off.

It seems to me that she did see him in spite of his stealth capabilities, so did make the required
observations.
 
M

Marc

Guest
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
> > capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations
> > required before setting off.
>
> It seems to me that she did see him in spite of his stealth capabilities, so did make the required
> observations.

I stand ready to be corrected, and I'm not willing to get into an acrimonious discussion , but Helen
said that she saw him as she was turning left, which implies ( at least to me ) that she was moving
before she saw him, wherease with proper observation he would have been seen ( if he could have been
seen) whilst her car was stationary as she did her pre movement observations. Put it this way a
motorcylce rider of quality would have checked all mirrors and looked over each shoulder before
moving off, I would expect no less of a good car driver.If Helen can remember doing the above ( or
can't remember because she always does
it) then I apologise.

--
Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
>Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth capabilities
>,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations required before
>setting off.

Ah but I did - that's how avoided him & I didn't hit him :) 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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
M

Marc

Guest
wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
> >capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations
> >required before setting off.
>
> Ah but I did - that's how avoided him & I didn't hit him :)

If you saw him before you set off, then your even more culpable, as the only two ways he could have
been going was left or straight on! Sorry.
:-(
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, Marc
<[email protected]> writes
>wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
>> >capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations
>> >required before setting off.
>>
>> Ah but I did - that's how avoided him & I didn't hit him :)
>
>If you saw him before you set off, then your even more culpable, as the only two ways he could have
>been going was left or straight on! Sorry.
>:-(

You seem to be going out of your way to be acrimonious despite your professed unwillingness to be
drawn into an argument.

Cyclists can be wrong, you know!
--
Michael MacClancy
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
>You seem to be going out of your way to be acrimonious despite your professed unwillingness to be
>drawn into an argument.
>
>Cyclists can be wrong, you know!
>--
>Michael MacClancy

Quite. Never mind the fact that the guy was *difficult*, almost *impossible* to see due to lack
of lighting, lack of reflectives, and he was cycling up the inside of a line of left turning
traffic - see: -

Highway Code Rule 57 relating to cyclists & road junctions. On the left. When approaching a junction
on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not
ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

I would have thought that was pretty clear. I pity the guy is he does it again when a driver is
really paying less attention. I'm glad I noticed him in time. If he'd had someone who was a bit less
alert to his presence, he would have likely been hit, and it would *not* have been the driver's
fault. It is just plain *stupid* to cycle up the inside of a line of traffic all ready to turn left.
That's not me being smug, that's just common sense for any cyclist.

I reiterate, I'm a driver, I'm a cyclist - as both I try my best to adhere to the HC and be
considerate of other road users. A cyclist wearing dark colours, with no lights, no reflectives,
cycling *at night* up the inside of a line of traffic all ready to turn left is doing a pretty
stupid thing, as well as being inconsiderate to other road users, be they other cyclists, motorists
or pedestrians. Just suppose he'd been at my blind spot? Sorry Marc, but when we cycle we should
adhere to the rules too - it helps reduce the risks to ourselves and to others.

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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 06 Mar 2003 19:51:20 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
> (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote this:-
>
> >The lights turned to green, so I got into first & started to pull away to
do
> >the *immediate* left turn - the one I was signalling to do.
>
> >no reflectives
>
> You car has sideways facing lights that would have illuminated such reflective materials for light
> to get back to your eyes? Fascinating, but I doubt if your car complies with the vehicle lighting
> regulations.

The reflectives may or may not aid the cyclists visibility when not in the beam of a cars headlights
but almost certainly will aid his visibility under other conditons. I take it on trust my cars
lights meet current regulations as it's only a year old but I know they aid my visibility at night.

All any of us can do when riding on public roads is to make ourselves as visible as possible, no
guarantee we'll be seen as indeed we are often invisible in good daylight but let's not give anyone
the slightest excuse to be able to say SMIDSY.

Pete
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
> > >capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it
seems
> > >that you didn't make the observations required before setting off.
> >
> > Ah but I did - that's how avoided him & I didn't hit him :)
>
> If you saw him before you set off, then your even more culpable, as the only two ways he could
> have been going was left or straight on! Sorry.
> :-(

What if she didn't see him before she set off as he was hidden behind other vehicles and masked by
headlights then after Helen checked her mirrors and proceeded to move off he caught up with her and
only by luck or good observation Helen saw him and reacted accordingly? After all scanning the road
and mirrors leaves short time periods where one or t'other is unscanned.

I think the point stands that he was riding down the inside of left signalling traffic at night with
inadequate lighting/visibility aids and placing himself in jeopardy, maybe he thinks he's a superior
cyclist and can deal with situations or maybe he doesn't think much at all.

Pete
 
A

Andrew Sweetman

Guest
James Annan <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I nearly posted about this when I saw it mentioned in a previous thread. I'm not sure that even
> 'white light' is enough, the fluo colouring is only really any use under twilight conditions when
> the UV component of _daylight_ is converted to visible. I think that artificial lights don't have
> enough UV to help.
>
Correct

Under sodium street lighting, everything is various shades of the same orange yellow, and you can't
tell the difference between a fluoro yellow jacket and a pale grey one. I find that *black* often
stands out from well (street) lit surroundings better than yellow, as there's more contrast.

Andrew
 
T

Tim Hall

Guest
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:59:32 +0000, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Soory Helen, but I think that you were at least partly at fault, even with his stealth
>> >capabilities ,even though you were indicating ,it seems that you didn't make the observations
>> >required before setting off.
>>
>> Ah but I did - that's how avoided him & I didn't hit him :)
>
>If you saw him before you set off, then your even more culpable, as the only two ways he could have
>been going was left or straight on! Sorry.
>:-(

Bollocks.

Helen used her observational skills to (1) see an unlit cyclist (2) not hit him.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.