Unlit cyclists

Paul Boyd wrote on 23/10/2006 07:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So there I was, cycling along a particularly dark, tree-overhung section
of cyclepath, when I was suddenly aware of a dark shape heading towards
me a bit bloody close.

A "cyclist" wearing all-over black (it looked like) and no lights or
front reflector. I said "Try some lights." as I skidded to a near-halt.
The reply? "It's a footpath!".

What the hell kind of logic is that?? If he thought it was a footpath,
what was he doing on it anyway? And what properties does a "footpath"
have that makes you suddenly visible to other people?

Prat!

Unwise maybe, but not a legal requirement AFAIK. The Road Vehicle
Lighting Regulations 1989 apply only, as the title suggests, to roads.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Quoted message said:

A "cyclist" wearing all-over black (it looked like) and no lights or
front reflector. I said "Try some lights." as I skidded to a near-halt.
The reply? "It's a footpath!".

Next time don't stop, and then he'll get your point.

Mark Thompson said the following on 23/10/2006 11:25:

Quoted message said:

Next time don't stop, and then he'll get your point.

There's a minor drawback to that idea :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In article said:

Paul Boyd wrote on 23/10/2006 07:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So there I was, cycling along a particularly dark, tree-overhung section
of cyclepath, when I was suddenly aware of a dark shape heading towards
me a bit bloody close.

A "cyclist" wearing all-over black (it looked like) and no lights or
front reflector. I said "Try some lights." as I skidded to a near-halt.
The reply? "It's a footpath!".

What the hell kind of logic is that?? If he thought it was a footpath,
what was he doing on it anyway? And what properties does a "footpath"
have that makes you suddenly visible to other people?

Prat!

Unwise maybe, but not a legal requirement AFAIK. The Road Vehicle
Lighting Regulations 1989 apply only, as the title suggests, to roads.

Though if it is a footpath/shared use path, you might expect to find unlit
pedestrians and be travelling at a speed that will allow you to avoid them.
(Which won't necessarily let you avoid an unlit cyclist who is going too
fast. Such a cyclist would indeed be a prat.)

Alan Braggins said:

Though if it is a footpath/shared use path, you might expect to find unlit
pedestrians and be travelling at a speed that will allow you to avoid them.
(Which won't necessarily let you avoid an unlit cyclist who is going too
fast. Such a cyclist would indeed be a prat.)

Indeed. The council recently changed the path nearest the river in
Wandsworth Park to be a Shared Use Path. I regularly come across
cyclists and dog walkers in the middle of an argument.

The path is completely unlit and in the shade of some large trees
blocking out the majority of moonlight. This makes it almost pitch
black most evenings (at least until winter comes).

The majority of cyclists have woefully-inadequate lighting. If they
have anything it's usually just a flashing LED which is useless for
lighting up the path infront of them let alone spotting a dog and/or
pedestrian up ahead.

The cyclists seem to think that they have the right to hare through
there at 25mph. Because of their poor lighting they wouldn't have seen
the "Shared Use Path. Pedestrian Priority" sign when entering the park.

Dog walkers are ignorant of HWC rule 42. If they do have their dog on a
lead then it's usually one of the extendible ones and the dog is the
other side of the path. Dogs aren't good at following the HWC.

Now consider a cyclist with proper lights. He can go at a brisk (but
considered) pace because he can see the path up ahead is clear. He then
spots a pedestrian and/or dog up ahead and can slow down. At the same
time the dog walker spots the well lit cyclist coming and makes sure
his dog is under control and by his side. They pass at a safe distance
and at a pace where a cordial "Good Evening!" is possible and continue
on their respective ways.

-Alex

Alan Braggins said the following on 23/10/2006 14:32:

Quoted message said:

Though if it is a footpath/shared use path, you might expect to find unlit
pedestrians and be travelling at a speed that will allow you to avoid them.

Which was exactly the situation this morning, except that pedantically
it's a segregated path. Not that that makes any difference! I was
indeed travelling at a speed that allowed me to avoid a collision. He
didn't appear to have slowed down at all, and presumably thought I had
superb night vision so would be able to see him.

Quoted message said:

(Which won't necessarily let you avoid an unlit cyclist who is going too
fast. Such a cyclist would indeed be a prat.)

He was indeed a prat, especially as he's just come round a blind,
downhill corner a bit smartish, which I don't do even in full daylight!

Unfortunately, google maps "don't have imagery" for the area at any
useful resolution, so I can't even put up a link to a pretty satellite
view of the path!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On 23/10/2006 14:51, Alex said,

Quoted message said:

Now consider a cyclist with proper lights. He can go at a brisk (but
considered) pace because he can see the path up ahead is clear. He then
spots a pedestrian and/or dog up ahead and can slow down. At the same
time the dog walker spots the well lit cyclist coming and makes sure
his dog is under control and by his side. They pass at a safe distance
and at a pace where a cordial "Good Evening!" is possible and continue
on their respective ways.

Ah - utopia! I just wish these extending dog leads weren't always
black! Sometimes it's hard enough to spot them in daytime, never mind
at night, no matter how good your lights are. You get the situation
where the pedestrian sees you, politely stands to one side, and a
cordial "Good evening" is exchanged. Then at the last second you spot
the lead stretched right across the path with a dog ferreting about on
the other side...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Ah - utopia! I just wish these extending dog leads weren't always
black! Sometimes it's hard enough to spot them in daytime, never mind
at night, no matter how good your lights are.

<nods> Of course, some dog owners do equip their pooches with collars
that are fitted with LEDs. Which is nice, except that you can only see
them if said animal is roughly broadside to you.

I do wonder why whomever makes those collars doesn't make/cover them in a
retroreflective material - shouldn't cost much more, and would result in
an improved product surely?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...