Young cyclist killed

[David Hansen]

On 04 Dec 2006 12:34:43 GMT someone who may be Will Cove
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>Not the only thing involved in perception perhaps but certainly the
>>>most important.
>>
>> Evidence for this assertion?
>
>I responded to something that metioned "seeing" - so we're talking about
>visual perception here. Sight relies upon rays of light (or photons -
>take your pick) reaching retinal receptors.

Incorrect. Something is only seen when the image reaches the brain,
is recognised and any necessary action taken.

>> Are there currently any limits on the number of lights motorists may
>> use?
>
>Yes, the lighting regs limit you to two dipped beam headlights at a time

Ah, so I can call up the police and report all those drivers with
more than those lights switched on. I wonder what the police will
do.

>and they must use euromarked bulbs, which effectively limit them to 2 x
>55W.

I note that you snipped my discussion of the difference between lamp
input power and light output.

>However, motorists can use an unlimited number of marker
>and rear position lights.

What is the difference between a marker light and any other sort of
light?

>> What sort of motor vehicle would this verge or barrier prevent from
>> reaching the bhantustan?
>
>Something like Armco could help prevent out of control vehicles from
>reaching the cyclepath.

Only small motor vehicles.

>However, that isn't the key.

Then why did you type, "Personally, I think that segregation would
be safest because motorised and human-powered traffic can't collide
if they don't share the same space", earlier? We have now determined
that motorised and human-powered traffic can collide, even where
they are segregated.

>The purpose of this
>is to give cyclists their own space that motorised traffic is not
>permitted to use except (for example) if they live on a street designated
>as a cycle route.

Then they are sharing the same space, which you earlier claimed they
would not.

>> How far apart to prevent some motorist emulating Mr Hart?
>
>?? Who Mr Hart?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hart+motorist&meta=cr=countryUK|countryGB
has just come up with several links about Mr Hart. It was the first
search term I used.

>Not complete segregation. However, I am advocating segregation as far as
>practically possible and giving non-motorised traffic priority where
>segregation is not possible.

History tells us about claims of separate but equal facilities. One
of the groups is rather more equal than the others.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Daniel Barlow]

p.k. wrote:
> Two cyclists
>
> 1 without lights and without relective clothing on a dark street at night
>
> 2 with lights and reflectives on adark street at night.

Well, the reflectives won't make much difference if there's no light for
them to reflect.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:24:34 -0000 someone who may be "p.k."
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I don't need to read your mind. Your posts make abundantly clear your
>approach to these things.

Then you are either not reading them, or failing to comprehend them.

>Two cyclists
>
>1 without lights and without relective clothing on a dark street at night
>
>2 with lights and reflectives on adark street at night.
>
>Whick one is likey to be more safe?

A dark street? Most streets are lit by lights placed along the
street, as well as other lighting.

If things were as you assert then the roads would be littered with
dead and injured cyclists whose bikes didn't have working lights.
However, they are not littered in this way.

There is also the question of whether lights broken in a crash were
working or not. Motorists tend to claim they were not.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[p.k.]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Two cyclists
>>
>> 1 without lights and without relective clothing on a dark street at
>> night
>>
>> 2 with lights and reflectives on adark street at night.
>
> Well, the reflectives won't make much difference if there's no light
> for them to reflect.


See, gyrations upon gyrations!

Which one is the car driver more likely to see?

Or, another cyclist.

Or pedestrian?

why the smart arsed gyration to avoid saying that a stealth cyclic is
putting themselves at more risk?

pk

 

[p.k.]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:24:34 -0000 someone who may be "p.k."
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> I don't need to read your mind. Your posts make abundantly clear your
>> approach to these things.
>
> Then you are either not reading them, or failing to comprehend them.
>
>> Two cyclists
>>
>> 1 without lights and without relective clothing on a dark street at
>> night
>>
>> 2 with lights and reflectives on adark street at night.
>>
>> Whick one is likey to be more safe?
>
> A dark street? Most streets are lit by lights placed along the
> street, as well as other lighting.
>
> If things were as you assert then the roads would be littered with
> dead and injured cyclists whose bikes didn't have working lights.
> However, they are not littered in this way.
>
> There is also the question of whether lights broken in a crash were
> working or not. Motorists tend to claim they were not.

Come on answer the question as posed instead of gyrating off again?

Two cyclists

1 without lights and without reflective clothing on a dark street at
night

2 with lights and reflectives on adark street at night.

Which one is likely to be more safe?

Why are you so afraid of making the simple statement that stealth cycling is
more dangerous than making yourself visible?

pk

 

[Will Cove]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> Incorrect. Something is only seen when the image reaches the brain,
> is recognised and any necessary action taken.

Er, before that can happen the image must first form on the retina
(unless you know another way that the brain of a non-bionic human can
receive visual data). Thus every aspect of visual perception relies upon
optical physics, which must therefore be the most important.


> I note that you snipped my discussion of the difference between lamp
> input power and light output.

Because you can neither create nor destroy energy. The regulations
restrict input power and hence limit on the light output by virtue of the
law of conservation of energy. Even though high-efficiency lights might
be too bright for your preference, they are still limited both in number
and in power.

>
>>However, motorists can use an unlimited number of marker
>>and rear position lights.
>
> What is the difference between a marker light and any other sort of
> light?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm gives the
requirements of all types of permitted and optional lights. Note that
some lights fit more than one description.

>
>>> What sort of motor vehicle would this verge or barrier prevent from
>>> reaching the bhantustan?
>>
>>Something like Armco could help prevent out of control vehicles from
>>reaching the cyclepath.
>
> Only small motor vehicles.
>
>>However, that isn't the key.
>
> Then why did you type, "Personally, I think that segregation would
> be safest because motorised and human-powered traffic can't collide
> if they don't share the same space", earlier? We have now determined
> that motorised and human-powered traffic can collide, even where
> they are segregated.

So what do you advocate to protect cyclists from falling trees?

You are being somewhat perverse. You are welcome to your point of view if
you believe (as I suspect) it undesirable to segregate vulnerable road
users from those most likely to inflict greatest harm. However:

> History tells us about claims of separate but equal facilities. One
> of the groups is rather more equal than the others."

is the only argument that I've seen from you this far that does anything
other than obfuscate.

 

[Will Cove]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> There's something wrong with his speed; he considers it acceptable to
> drive at speeds at which he cannot with confidence be certain that the
> road ahead is clear for at least his stopping distance under the
> conditions.

Nothing is certain. For example, applying what you say from motoring to
cycling means that it would be unacceptable to cycle at such a speed that
you cannot see a piano wire stretched across your path in time to stop
safely and thus any cyclist garrotted by such a booby trap must have been
negligent in some way and so contributed to his own downfall. Piano wires
are not invisible - hard to see, yes, but not invisible. You can see them
from a couple of fee or so away if you look hard enough, and if you're
travelling slowly enough you can stop in time.

The question is whether the obstruction could be reasonably anticipated.
Since cycling after lighting up time without lights is illegal, it is not
reasonable to expect other road users to anticipate stealth cyclists and
thus to drive so as to be able to avoid one that "materialises" a few
feet in front of them.

You should always drive (and ride) so that you can stop within the
distance you can see to be clear _and can be reasonably expect to remain
clear while stopping_. (speedophiles always seem to miss that last bit,
which is important because it halves the available distance in many
circumstances). However, the key here is "see to be clear" - and if you
can't see something you can't take it into account.

As an aside, I often wonder how many cyclists ride according to this
essential safety rule because over a quarter of the ones I see on the
road haven't given themselves enough room for the speed they're going and
wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of stopping if a door opened
in front of them or someone pulled out of a side street.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Will Cove wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> There's something wrong with his speed; he considers it acceptable to
>> drive at speeds at which he cannot with confidence be certain that the
>> road ahead is clear for at least his stopping distance under the
>> conditions.
>
> Nothing is certain.

Which is perhaps why he said "he cannot with confidence" rather than "he
cannot know for sure"?

> The question is whether the obstruction could be reasonably anticipated.
> Since cycling after lighting up time without lights is illegal, it is not
> reasonable to expect other road users to anticipate stealth cyclists and
> thus to drive so as to be able to avoid one that "materialises" a few
> feet in front of them.

Oh... so it's perfectly all right to knock down kids walking home from
school in midwinter because there isn't a legal requirement saying they
need to look like Christmas trees after dark? Well, that's all right then!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Will Cove wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> There's something wrong with his speed; he considers it acceptable
>>> to drive at speeds at which he cannot with confidence be certain
>>> that the road ahead is clear for at least his stopping distance
>>> under the conditions.
>>
>> Nothing is certain.
>
> Which is perhaps why he said "he cannot with confidence" rather than
> "he cannot know for sure"?
>
>> The question is whether the obstruction could be reasonably
>> anticipated. Since cycling after lighting up time without lights is
>> illegal, it is not reasonable to expect other road users to
>> anticipate stealth cyclists and thus to drive so as to be able to
>> avoid one that "materialises" a few feet in front of them.
>
> Oh... so it's perfectly all right to knock down kids walking home from
> school in midwinter because there isn't a legal requirement saying
> they need to look like Christmas trees after dark? Well, that's all
> right then!

No one is saying that, or implying that, or saying anything from which one
can reasonably infer that.

BUT. if I place myself in a roadway after dark and without lights (as a
cyclist) and/or reflective clothing I am a bloody fool, because I am
choosing to put myself at significantly greater risk of not being seen by a
driver/cyclist/pedestrian who might not see me and might do something that
puts me at risk. If I do make myself more visible I am likely to be at less
risk.

What is so difficult about criticising cyclists who by their failure to wear
appropriate gear put themselves and other road users (including other
cyclists and pedestrians who might not see them!) at greater risk?

pk

 

[Daniel Barlow]

p.k. wrote:

> why the smart arsed gyration to avoid saying that a stealth cyclic is
> putting themselves at more risk?

Because it's pretty bleeding obvious that that's the case, and it's more
illuminating(sic) to look at the other issues such as your rather
strange specification of "lights and reflectives". If you have a
scenario in mind where reflectives will have any effect, perhaps it's
not really such a dark road after all?

I know that on the streets of central London (very definitely not dark
places) the dinky little LED blinkies sported by many cyclists are about
the last thing I notice about them. In fact sometimes I even look at a
cyclist and think "that's dumb, out at this time without a rear light"
before I see the red glow.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> No one is saying that, or implying that, or saying anything from which one
> can reasonably infer that.

He strongly suggested it was unreasonable to expect drivers to see unlit
cyclists showing up in their headlights in time to avoid them. I don't
really see how an unlit cyclist should be any different to a child
crossing the road in that respect.

> What is so difficult about criticising cyclists who by their failure to wear
> appropriate gear put themselves and other road users (including other
> cyclists and pedestrians who might not see them!) at greater risk?

It isn't criticising the cyclists that's the problem, it's absolving
anyone else of any blame /at the same time/. "Well, he was a bloody
fool so it's okay for you to run him down". He is a bloody fool, he is
outside the law and should be held to account for that, but it is *not*
all right to run him down nor is there particular reason to do that if
you're looking where you're going.

There is no shortage of criticism of "stealth cyclists" on this group,
but the fact remains they /are/ visible. If that were not the case then
people wouldn't spend so much energy going on about how many they see!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> There is no shortage of criticism of "stealth cyclists" on this group,
> but the fact remains they /are/ visible. If that were not the case
> then people wouldn't spend so much energy going on about how many
> they see!


an it is testament to the good observation by most drivers that the mowing
down of stealth cyclists is rare.

But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.

do you agree?

pk

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> an it is testament to the good observation by most drivers that the mowing
> down of stealth cyclists is rare.
>
> But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.
>
> do you agree?

I do. Do you agree that it's not reasonable to /expect/ them to be run
down? Do you ever leave your car parked without the lights on? If so,
are you amazed to find nobody's driven into it the next day despite it
being in the road without lights? Do you find you miss corners in the
road that aren't specially illuminated for you?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark Thompson]

> But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.
>
> do you agree?

EVERYONE here agrees that its a foolish thing to do. No one has been
arguing that it isn't foolish. We also agree that its cold inside a
freezer.

Do you agree?

 

[cupra]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> an it is testament to the good observation by most drivers that the
>> mowing down of stealth cyclists is rare.
>>
>> But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.
>>
>> do you agree?
>
> I do. Do you agree that it's not reasonable to /expect/ them to be
> run down? Do you ever leave your car parked without the lights on? If so,
> are you amazed to find nobody's driven into it the next day
> despite it being in the road without lights?

I cycled into the back of a parked car when I was about 12.... in bright
daylight (steep hill, concentrating on getting up it rather than the tarmac
in front)!

To this day I still don't know how I managed to do it.....

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Thompson wrote:

> > But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.
> >
> > do you agree?
>
> EVERYONE here agrees that its a foolish thing to do. No one has been
> arguing that it isn't foolish. We also agree that its cold inside a
> freezer.
>
> Do you agree?

Is it switched on? IGMC

best wishes
james

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> an it is testament to the good observation by most drivers that the
>> mowing down of stealth cyclists is rare.
>>
>> But that does not alter the fact that stealth cyclists are fools.
>>
>> do you agree?
>
> I do. Do you agree that it's not reasonable to /expect/ them to be
> run down?

Absolutely i agree, just as it is reasonable to expect drivers to try to
avoid any idiot who puts themselves in a stupid place. But if they are hit,
then they are partly to blame.

pk

 

[Jeremy Parker]

>>> He is obliged to be able to stop in the distance that he *can
>>> see* to be
>>> clear ahead, not the distance that he *thinks* is clear ahead.
>>
>> I think perhaps I didn't make my point clear. What I was saying
>> was
>> that when driving at night, it's possible to see a certain
>> distance
>> ahead that is clear - i.e, you can't see any danger or
>> obstructions
>> ahead, and a driver may drive at a speed that allows them to stop
>> for as
>> far as they can see no danger

[snip].

Lots of things are unlit at night - sheep, deer, stuff fallen off the
back of a lorry, pedestrians etc.

With cats eyes, and reflecting white traffic paint, drivers can see
what is really the reflection of their own headlights much further
than they can see anything else.

Maybe we should ban cats eyes, ban reflecting paint, and perhaps ban
lights and reflectors on the back of any vehicle except bicycles (and
other non motorised cycles) so as not to mislead drivers about how
far they can see.

When I was young, it was considered anti-social for drivers to use
anything beyond side lights where there were street lights

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> p.k. wrote:
>
>> No one is saying that, or implying that, or saying anything from which
>> one can reasonably infer that.
>
> He strongly suggested it was unreasonable to expect drivers to see unlit
> cyclists showing up in their headlights in time to avoid them. I don't
> really see how an unlit cyclist should be any different to a child
> crossing the road in that respect.

Pete, don't wrestle with trolls.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

 

[David Hansen]

On 04 Dec 2006 14:07:00 GMT someone who may be Will Cove
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Incorrect. Something is only seen when the image reaches the brain,
>> is recognised and any necessary action taken.
>
>Er, before that can happen the image must first form on the retina
>(unless you know another way that the brain of a non-bionic human can
>receive visual data). Thus every aspect of visual perception relies upon
>optical physics,

Precisely where have I said that this is not part of the process?

>which must therefore be the most important.

Must it? Why?

>> I note that you snipped my discussion of the difference between lamp
>> input power and light output.
>
>Because you can neither create nor destroy energy.

It can be converted from one form into another, for example from
electricity into heat and light.

>The regulations
>restrict input power and hence limit on the light output by virtue of the
>law of conservation of energy.

Incorrect. In a typical GLS lamp most of the electricity is
converted into heat and only a little into light. Change the
filament, gas and envelope and one has what is commonly called a
halogen lamp, which produces more light for the same electrical
input. Change the engineering more seriously and one has a discharge
lamp, which produces even more light for the same electrical input
though it takes a little time to strike.

>So what do you advocate to protect cyclists from falling trees?

Interesting swerve. However, what are these trees that don't fall on
cyclepaths?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54