Young cyclist killed

[Don Whybrow]

p.k. wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>p.k. wrote:
>>>do you agree?
>>I do. Do you agree
> Absolutely i agree

Isn't it nice to see people agreeing with each other.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I suppose they are vicious rascals, but it scarcely matters what they
are. I'm after what they know." (Gibson-Sterling, The Difference Engine)

 

[Daniel Barlow]

David Hansen wrote:
>> So what do you advocate to protect cyclists from falling trees?
>
> Interesting swerve.

Yup, that'd work. But watch out for other road users who might not be
expecting the sudden change in direction.


-dan

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

 

[Danny Colyer]

Will Cove wrote:
> Not really. While a pure, black object probably does not exist, more than
> adequately camouflaged ones do. Because of the difference in sensitivity of
> rods and cones, night vision is almost monochromatic,

We're talking about objects that you should be able to pick up in your
headlights, which should put out enough light to allow colour vision.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

p.k. wrote:
> Once again I marvel at the mental gyrations that so many here go through to
> avoid criticising any action by any cyclist.

I should be interested to see where you have found such gyrations in
this thread. Reading your posts, you seem to be under the impression
that someone here thinks stealth cycling isn't stupid. I have seen
nothing to imply that anyone has this belief, the point under discussion
is whether motorists ought to be able to see them anyway.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

Will Cove wrote:
> 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.

That's below the belt. There is a world of difference between looking
for a small object that no-one could reasonably expect to encounter and
where a collision would harm only oneself, and looking for a large
object that every road user can reasonably expect to encounter and where
a collision is likely to harm others (e.g. a pedestrian, dog or deer,
and if you're looking out for those hazards then there should be no
problem spotting a stealth cyclist).

FWIW, I believe I would have been far less likely to be garrotted if my
fishing line incident had occurred at night rather than on a sunny day,
precisely because my lights would have picked it out. Would you suggest
that I should keep my speed to 10mph during the day in order to avoid
this particular hazard, and only to go faster at night?

> 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.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect road users to anticipate
pedestrians, wildlife or fallen trees, none of which is required by law
to be fitted by lights. If you can see an unlit pedestrian, a fox or a
deer, then you can see a stealth cyclist.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Will Cove]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Not really. While a pure, black object probably does not exist, more
>> than adequately camouflaged ones do. Because of the difference in
>> sensitivity of rods and cones, night vision is almost monochromatic,
>
> We're talking about objects that you should be able to pick up in your
> headlights, which should put out enough light to allow colour vision.

Mine don't - at least not the vibrant colours seen in daylight. At night
most things appears in shades of grey perhaps tinged slightly with colour -
i.e. almost monochromatic. The black and white receptors in your retina are
much more sensitive than the colour receptors under low-light conditions.
Also, there is no way that headlights can give full colour because their
spectrum is much less than that of natural sunlight.

 

[Will Cove]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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"?

He did say "be certain", and since there have been several cases of piano
wire, the cyclist could not with confidence be certain that his way ahead
is clear for at least his stopping distance under the conditions.


>> 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!

How many parents would let their children walk along an unlit road in the
dark without ensuring they could be easily seen, and how would you view
such parents?

On the legal side - and I didn't expect this - Paul Smith (of SafeSpeed)
agrees with you. After condemning stealth cyclists, he wrote:

> In law, as I understand it, a cyclist is pretty much a pedestrian. The
> test that would be applied after the event is not 'was the cyclist
> obeying the rules' but 'would the driver have been able to avoid a
> similarly visible pedestrian'. When this test fails (i.e. the driver
> would not have been able to avoid a similarly visible pedestrian)
> then I think the offence of careless (or dangerous) driving is
> probably complete.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11195

Now I've never argued that motorists shouldn't take avoiding action on
seeing stealth cyclists - just that it seemed unreasonable to expect them
to see something that couldn't be seen. I'll concede that the law might not
agree with my viewpoint. That said, it's got to be better to avoid stealth
cycling than to complain at the pearly gates that the motorist was partly
to blame for an accident you could have avoided.

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:36:10 +0000, Danny Colyer
<[email protected]> wrote:

[---]

>As I wrote previously, I will not attempt to defend stealth cycling but
>nor do I accept that a competent motorist is likely to fail to see a
>stealth cyclist.

I do not live in the UK, and am not familiar with the term "stealth
cycling". What exactly is it - a cyclist who is difficult to see
because of a poor choice of clothing and/or defective lighting, or one
who deliberately attempts not to be seen by others?

 

[dkahn400]

Andrew Price wrote:

> I do not live in the UK, and am not familiar with the term "stealth
> cycling". What exactly is it - a cyclist who is difficult to see
> because of a poor choice of clothing and/or defective lighting, or one
> who deliberately attempts not to be seen by others?

The former - it's used ironically, as though the cyclist were
deliberately attempting to conceal himself from other traffic. It's
also used ironically as in "I was in full stealth mode" meaning
festooned in lights and reflectives that ought to make us visible from
space. It has often been observed that this practice apparently renders
us invisible to some motorists.

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Pete, don't wrestle with trolls.

PK is a strong and frequent swimmer against the current but that
doesn't make him a troll, and I don't accept that he is one.

--
Dave...

 

[Al C-F]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>
>>On 04 Dec 2006 08:27:12 GMT someone who may be Will Cove
>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>When conditions dictate I do. That is after lighting-up time and in
>>>conditions of reduced visibility. But then I would, I drive legally.
>
>
>>Is your motor vehicle covered in high-visibility material?
>
>
>>>Do you use lights on your bike when riding after lighting-up time? Do you
>>>wear high-vis clothing? Do you ride legally?
>
>
>>Only lights are a legal requirement.
>
>
> <pedant>
>
> and a red rear reflector AFAIK
>
> <pedant>
>

And, I believe, pedal reflectors, front and back. (as long as the bike
was bought after some date - 1985?)

 

[p.k.]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Pete, don't wrestle with trolls.
>
> PK is a strong and frequent swimmer against the current but that
> doesn't make him a troll, and I don't accept that he is one.

trolls throw rocks, step back and watch the mayhem.

Some might not like my line of thought or argument on some issues, but as
wiki says: The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its
proponent, by argument ad hominem.

pk

 

[Peter Headland]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> When I was in the States, the guys I was working with
> couldn't believe that my license lasted until I was 70 - I had to show them!

In the USA, the driving test is ridiculously easy to pass compared to
the UK test (I have taken both). Once you have your license in the USA,
the only "test" you ever have to pass is an eyesight test and a
multiple-choice highway code test every 4(?) years. No road test.

On the whole, driving skills are even worse in the USA than the UK.
While roads in the USA are generally easier to drive on in the USA
(they are mostly much wider, and traffic densities are typically
lower), the USA has really bad accident statistics. Oh, and driving
while noticeably intoxicated does not carry the stigma in the USA that
it does in the UK.

--
Peter Headland

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Peter Headland <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > When I was in the States, the guys I was working with
> > couldn't believe that my license lasted until I was 70 - I had to show them!
>
> In the USA, the driving test is ridiculously easy to pass compared to
> the UK test (I have taken both). Once you have your license in the USA,
> the only "test" you ever have to pass is an eyesight test and a
> multiple-choice highway code test every 4(?) years. No road test.
>
Does that vary by state? ISTR an episode of Hill Street Blues in which
Belker was taking a test when he became involved in a pursuit.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Rob Morley said the following on 05/12/2006 03:20:

> Does that vary by state? ISTR an episode of Hill Street Blues in which
> Belker was taking a test when he became involved in a pursuit.

Hill Street Blues was a fictional program

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

Don Whybrow said the following on 04/12/2006 18:14:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>> do you agree?
>>> I do. Do you agree
>> Absolutely i agree
>
> Isn't it nice to see people agreeing with each other.

I disagree

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

 

[wafflycat]

"Peter Headland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> When I was in the States, the guys I was working with
>> couldn't believe that my license lasted until I was 70 - I had to show
>> them!
>
> In the USA, the driving test is ridiculously easy to pass compared to
> the UK test (I have taken both). Once you have your license in the USA,
> the only "test" you ever have to pass is an eyesight test and a
> multiple-choice highway code test every 4(?) years. No road test.
>
> On the whole, driving skills are even worse in the USA than the UK.
> While roads in the USA are generally easier to drive on in the USA
> (they are mostly much wider, and traffic densities are typically
> lower), the USA has really bad accident statistics. Oh, and driving
> while noticeably intoxicated does not carry the stigma in the USA that
> it does in the UK.

Over in my bit of Old Blighty there are various US bases. Some time ago
there was a spate of serious road 'accidents' which involved personnel from
said bases. Basically, the folk from Leftpondia couldn't manage UK roads.
They kept driving on the right and were apparently finding our relatively
narrow roads difficult to cope with. This resulted in the powers that be at
the base issuing instructions on which roads their personnel were not
allowed to use IIRC.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Jeremy Parker said the following on 04/12/2006 17:07:

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

Whereas now it seems almost compulsory to switch on front fog lights if
you have them, along with headlights. It must be OK to do this, because
coppers never do anything about it...

Incidentally, your comment is an example of why I think people should be
re-tested every so often - because things do change over time.
Unfortunately many people don't move with those changes, or simply
aren't aware of them, so there can be a conflict between generations.
Roundabouts seem to be a case in point - the 18 year old son of a
colleague has been taught to negotiate roundabouts in a different manner
to that which we were taught 20+ years ago, which might explain why more
people seem to want to go right round in the left hand lane. Red lights
becoming advisory rather than mandatory seems to be another change!
Remember the old "don't amber gamble" campaigns? How quaint - in this
neck o' the woods, if you stop at an amber light you will be rear-ended.

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

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Rob Morley <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> In article <[email protected]>
> Peter Headland <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> When I was in the States, the guys I was working with
>>> couldn't believe that my license lasted until I was 70 - I had to
>>> show them!
>>
>> In the USA, the driving test is ridiculously easy to pass compared to
>> the UK test (I have taken both). Once you have your license in the
>> USA, the only "test" you ever have to pass is an eyesight test and a
>> multiple-choice highway code test every 4(?) years. No road test.
>>
> Does that vary by state? ISTR an episode of Hill Street Blues in
> which Belker was taking a test when he became involved in a pursuit.

Dunno about testing, but driving standards seem somewhat variable on a
state-by-state basis. California vies with Belgium as the most scarifying
place I've ever driven, but hop across the border into Nevada or Arizona and
things are much less fraught...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
This Unit is a productive Unit.

 

[Peter Clinch]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Pete, don't wrestle with trolls.
>
> PK is a strong and frequent swimmer against the current but that
> doesn't make him a troll, and I don't accept that he is one.

I agree, though I think he is talking bollox (TM) on this particular
occasion.

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/