UKC

As I drove back from Keswick last night in the half light at 7pm - very poor visibility, "entre chien et loup" as the French say, I chanced upon a couple of cyclists - fairly near the middle of a narrow country road heading towards me. No front lights.

As a cyclist I despair at the self-righteous stupidity of many cyclists. It seems the minute they mount a bike they show no respect, no deference, no self-preservation skills. They could hear me coming. No driver would see them.

A bit like some of the ones who come through the villages round here at silent unstoppable speeds despite the prevalence of kids playing, people reversing out of driveways, horse-riders, blind corners. They have a death wish, and presumably will blame someone else.

Please take care cyclists everywhere!
DC

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

While I tend to agree with you on the lights front, it's that time of year when evening light can be unpredictable and getting back even half an hour later than expected/planned can mean the difference between needing lights or not.

I would have needed lights cycling home from work yesterday, but I probably won't tonight at more or less the same time.

It's certainly that time of year that I start to carry a set of tiny LED ones just in case...

In reply to LastBoyScout:


Lights these days are so light and cheap that there really is no excuse for not having them - it's not like the days when they all ran on D batteries.

Then again what time is sunset in Cumberland right now - my guess is around 7pm. It quite possible to be on a bike and think there's plenty of light, but from the inside of a car you see less.

So:
Cyclists - use lights
Motorist - make more effort to look for cyclists and pedestrians.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Not sure about the self-righteous bit. I think it's just stupidity.

There are stupid people using all modes of transport.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

0/10 troll go back to your Daily Fail comic

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Troll or not, it's a fair point. Cycling in darkness on the roads, without lights is suicidally stupid.

If you think I'm some frothing-at-the-mouth, cyclist-hating petrolhead, you might want to check my posting history...

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

100% to everything you said! There's definitely a new breed of arrogant cyclists around with no knowledge of the correct etiquette but I'm also staggered by the number of guys I regularly ride with in my club who have been riding for years and still do these things. Here's some things that I have noted when I'm covering my 15,000km a year on my bike.

Cycling through built up areas in excess of 30/35kmh.
Cycling past parked cars less than a door's width away.
Not making eye contact with car drivers ready to pull out in front of you.
Cycling two abreast more than a metre apart. (Nothing wrong with two a breast when done correctly)
Pootling along in a small bunch, sometimes three abreast oblivious to or just blatantly ignoring cars behind them.
Pulling in to the side of a narrow road and not getting onto the pavement.
Not acknowledging when a car actually does do something nice for you (This particularly winds me up when I'm driving and I pull in, slow down, wait for ages until it's safe to pass or give a cyclists a wide berth)

W

In reply to captain paranoia:

I think Chris hit the nail on the head. Anyone who has taken the effort to ride somewhere remote has probably just made a misjudgement rather than not been bothered. It is amazing how you get used to low ambient light levels outside )walking or cycling) especially when there aren't other clues like car headlights or house lights about. Either that or they were out later than anticipated.

If you want to really get wound up about low visibility, no light numpties, try driving through Cambridge !

In reply to GrahamD:

I think Chris made two ket points. Firstly, about there really being little excuse for not carrying lights at this time of year "just in case". (I have a rear light permanently attached anyway, and I always carry an LED torch which I can clip to the handlebars if needed.)

The second point is easy to miss: on a bike (and on foot, come to that) you often don't realise how much being inside a car impairs your ability to see what's going on around you in marginal light conditions. A pane of (possibly tinted) glass between you and the outside world makes a surprising amount of distance.

In reply to Martin W:

On the first point, I'll agree there shouldn't be an excuse for carrying a light - but it does happen ! Plug for the sub tenner Decathlon rechargeable lights which can be set to white or red.

Second point is more complex than just the driver not realising how much their visibility has dropped - after all they are probably adjusted to a level of light which includes their headlights. More pertinent I think is that the cyclist does not realise how dark it is. Its similar to walking off the hill being able to see perfectly only to see that the lights in the ODG are really bright down the valley.

I don't get this - it's either a Daily Mail journalist or a 10 year old prepubescent boy telling on his mates to elevate his status?

As "a cyclist yourself", did you consider what led them to being out in half light with no lights (e.g. reasons yourself have taken longer on a ride than expected)?

From your experience as a cyclist, you must have thought, maybe they've just been held up, maybe they had a mechanical etc - they're late home...do you think that they deliberately left home thinking "screw having lights, lets cause terror and mayhem on the road".. Maybe conditions slowed them down?
No no no, lets not have reasonable considered thinking - jump straight to "cyclists are nasty horrible road users", and mash the keyboard venting fury.

Since you're so bothered about road users flaunting the law, I assume you have posts on cars that break the law, or misjudge timing?
I have hours of footage from both my car and my bike that you can have, should you feel the need to write about other road users and their behaviour (which actually causes the deaths we don't hear about in the press).

I think I agree with what you're trying to say, I disagree with the sentiment and this post really.

Yes, they should have had lights on, they didn't - we don't know what the circumstances are. You seem to assume that as they're cyclists then it was a deliberate and that above all other crimes on the road, this is the one worth highlighting!

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Most of the things below are not mandatory so you may cycle like that but others may not, granted most are sensible suggestions and should come with experience.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Motorists too - you spot the ones with lights earlier when we have strong shadows and a bright low autumnal sun.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

It doesn't matter how well you can see it's how well you can be seen, regardless of the time of day. Even during the bright summer months if you drive down road that is in a "tunnel of trees" then it doesn't matter if you are a pedestrian, cyclist, motor cyclist or a car then chances are you are harder to see. Coming from bright sunlight into shadow it's going to take your eyes a moment to adjust.

Also, at this time of year we are getting a low sunrise and sunset. If the sun is behind you then great, you can see. The person coming the other way however might struggle to see you.

Personally I always ride with my lights on as there are a lot of lanes in my area which are covered by trees. If someone sees me a few seconds earlier then that can only be a good thing.

On the flip side though, I do remember being highly disorientated when a group of cyclists came towards me on a country road with their high powered lights angled too high and I couldn't work out what was going on. I first thought it was a tractor coming off the field. I had to stop as I was completely blinded.

I see this as part of controlling the risk of a situation. If I can reduce my risk in any shape or form then it can only be a good thing. Most lights are rechargeable these days and if not then the Amazon Basics rechargeable are very good value for money. They are based on the "Eneloop" technology which means they can hold their charge when not being used for years.

In reply to Einriba:


None of those are excuses for breaking the law. If your vehicle becomes unroadworthy for any reason (including your own poor planning), you stop and make other arrangements for getting where you are going. Accidental or deliberate has nothing to do with what the correct actions should be. Of course it is inconvenient, but it is also entirely preventable. Being out in the dark without lights is dangerous for yourself and other road users.

In reply to MarkJH:


We aren't talking about out in the dark. We are talking dusk, where the light perceived by someone who has been outside for a while is totally different to someone who has been sitting in a lighted environment. At the end of the day, you are correct, though. Its another road user breaking the law.

In reply to Einriba:

Another cyclist here and in the last 7 years exclusively on the road and yes, I agree with the OP, too many cyclists seem to have an inflated sense of entitlement and seem almost to be daring motorists to take issue with their behaviour. At its best you see it in ill-disciplined groups who make no effort to allow motorists to pass, which is their responsibility as slower-moving road users. At its worst you see yobs on bikes (I don't consider them cyclists) swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights, knowing no motorist will dare to hit them, irrespective of the chaos a sudden maneuver can cause.

In reply to GrahamD:


Fair point, but would still be 'night' as per the RVLRs.

In reply to MarkJH:
I agree - out in the dark without lights - is dangerous.
You described it as "half light" at 7pm.....

At 7pm, this time of year, I'd guess there's another 10 - 15 minutes of light before an absolute need for lights (of course dependant on cloud cover, where in the UK you are etc).

Again though - I have loads of evidence of cars where they've not been road worthy and still been carrying on with their journey (lights broken, tyres under the minimum limit)....again, they're not cited in your comments, just an anti-cycling post.

I particularly was drawn to

"A bit like some of the ones who come through the villages round here at silent unstoppable speeds despite the prevalence of kids playing, people reversing out of driveways, horse-riders, blind corners. They have a death wish, and presumably will blame someone else."

I mean the last sentence - seen the news about Jerry Gore?https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71306/jerry_gore_involved_in_road_bike...

I bet he was one of those travelling at "silent unstoppable speeds blaming someone else"?

People reversing out of their drives should do so while looking - if someone is approaching, they shouldn't pull out. Unless your village is on a hill, I doubt most club riders would get much above 20-25mph.....that is hardly an "unstoppable speed".

In reply to GrahamD:

I think there is a problem, I enjoyed a great evening's training ride along the Strines yesterday evening, racing to get home before dusk, I was very glad of my ultra compact featherweight rechargeable flashing lights as the light got gloomier, especially getting back home through built up areas with commuters only thinking about getting home for their dinner. However I didn't see a single other cyclist with lights, most of these seemed to be out for training runs (like myself). I think the problem is inertia; many cyclist have not used lights in the past because they were heavy and relied on disposable batteries - also maybe an under appreciation of the real risks of being knocked off in poor light

In reply to kevin stephens:

I think that a fair few are getting caught out by how quickly the nights are drawing in, especially with the bad weather we've had. It's just turned Autumn, the equinox has been and gone...

Our club rides insist that you come with lights. If you turn up with out them, you can't ride with us. We don't know what we're going to encounter on the roads, so we ask all member to be prepared.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

"...no motorist will dare to hit them..."

Why would they want to? A punishment for the yobbish behaviour perhaps? I would hope any road user would try to avoid collision with another road user - no matter how annoying and erratic that human being might be on the road.

In reply to EarlyBird:

I think Rigid Raider may have been referring to a misplaced sense of invincibility on behalf of the yobs. I actually encountered one of these last night, I was well into the red out of the saddle aiming for a PR on my local cat 4 climb back home (Cote d'Oughtibridge) when I was passed at speed by a guy on a mountain bike wearing cammo street clothing.


I felt a bit better when I noticed the whirr of an electric motor - hope he's not on Strava

In reply to kevin stephens:


Yes, thanks for taking the trouble to understand my post.

If you dare to take issue with a swerving yob you will get an arrogant stare or the finger. Yobs on bikes have the moral high ground so it's fine for them to break the rules of the road.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I was well into the red out of the saddle aiming for a PR on my local cat 4 climb back home (Cote d'Oughtibridge) when I was passed at speed by a guy on a mountain bike wearing cammo street clothing.

Was this the guy:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jba8gLgGz1g&

In reply to captain paranoia:
Check the time it was not datk, only 6 mins after sunset. So hardly dark. As other have said probably just got caught out. A simple mistake. You will ge frothing about climbers or walkers making mistakes and needing rescuing next.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Presumably had it been walkers walking down the narrow lane you would call them self righteous and stupid as well.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes, we've all been caught out by the dark on occasion.

But when I'm caught out, I take very great care not to expose myself to the risk of being hit; I ride very cautiously, off road if possible (and, if that means on pavements, accepting that I have to cede to any pedestrians I encounter).

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Check the time it was not datk, only 6 mins after sunset. So hardly dark. As other have said probably just got caught out. A simple mistake.

If you were driving, would you put your lights on? If so, bikes should have their lights on as well. Getting 'caught out' isn't really an excuse.

In reply to Einriba:

There isn't a chance that I'd be out on my bike at 7pm without lights at this time of year. From a legal point of view, you might (just) be OK by 7pm, but you would definitely be illegal by quarter past.


That definitely says something about how you view the issues, but I don't think it is a helpful attitude. I don't view your 1st sentence (or any of the other posts complaining about illegal behaviour by car drivers) as 'anti-motoring'. Neither is the OP 'anti-cycling'. It is complaining about illegal (or possibly just dangerous road use) of a particular type. It is one post about a specific subject, and it would be tedious and illogical if every post with a given complaint also had to list similar actions by different groups out of fairness.

Complaining about cyclists without lights, does not mean that you condone dangerous overtakes (for example). Most of us here sometimes ride our bikes, sometimes use our cars and sometimes walk, and are perfectly happy to identify as responsible road users rather than having to be a 'cyclist' or a 'motorist'.

In reply to FactorXXX:
If I were driving in very poor visibility due to fog in a narrow lane I would keep my speed below 20 mph. What I not would do is come on here to go cyclist bashing.

Should we go motorist bashing because of

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

I suppose Dave will agree there are 130 self righteous and stupid arrogant motorists involved in the above.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


I think it's more likely that the yobs you're referring to just behave like dicks as a default setting rather than believing they're operating from any moral high ground.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

If I were driving in very poor visibility due to fog in a narrow lane I would keep my speed below 20 mph. What I not would do is come on here to go cyclist bashing.

Would you put your lights on as well?


Should we go motorist bashing because of

Motorists drive badly, therefore cyclists can as well?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Because you never make a mistake and get caught out. They were obviously a bit late getting back. I bet you are as judgemental about mountain rescues as well.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


40-odd years of travelling by bike tells me that twilight is one of the most dangerous times of day; the light is flat, and everything looks rather grey, so there's little contrast. Even with bike lights, it's dangerous, as the lights aren't particularly bright enough to be contrasty against the low light. High brightness LED lights have made that better in recent years.

Fluorescent clothing comes into its own at twilight, since twilight has a relatively high UV, so fluorescent materials 'glow' very nicely, providing good contrast.

Regardless of the legal position of minutes after sunset, riding in low light, and not recognising that you are in danger due to poor visibility, isn't smart.

Yobs on bikes playing silly buggers, and cyclists 'making mistakes' all contribute towards the ill-feeling some drivers feel towards cyclists. As such, I am put at increased risk, regardless of whether that ill-feeling is legitimate, or should be directed at me.

In reply to FactorXXX:


If I had them yes. But if I was caught out I would not stay out in the dark and fog all night risking hypothermia. They had a choice of walking with their bikes or cycling with their bikes down the lane. One gets them to safety quicker. One is against the law after dark, one is not. The encounter for our Dave is pretty much the same.



You need to get a sense of perspective as above.

In reply to captain paranoia:
And what makes them Yobs exactly? If they had been walkers late off the hill presumably you would call them yobs as well. Indeed had they been walking with their bikes and therefore pedestrians would they still be yobs?

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Because you never make a mistake and get caught out. They were obviously a bit late getting back. I bet you are as judgemental about mountain rescues as well.

A cyclist is a road user and if conditions dictate, they should have lights. No excuses - if push comes to shove, wheel it home, catch a bus, phone someone, etc. A bit late getting back - fit/carry lights just in case.
As for Mountain Rescue, in a similar scenario, i.e. someone sets off somewhere with a reasonable expectation of night falling, etc. then yes, I would hope that they would be carrying a torch and if they weren't and had to call out MR accordingly, then I would expect MR to be a bit pissed off about people going out ill prepared. If the story came out on UKC, I'm fairly sure I'd think to myself: 'Why weren't they carrying a torch'?

In reply to FactorXXX:

But the OP is not concerned about whether they are wheeling thir bikes home. He would have the same response if they were merely walking down the lane. His second and third paragraphs have nothing to do with the "supposed" encounter.

This post is just a troll, time to stop feeding it.

In reply to FactorXXX:
This post has nothing to do with the law and you know it. It is just about bashing a minority group and you know it. It could have been walkers or sheep in the narrow lane. Same situation one vulnerable group unlit. After all who hasn't caught walkers in a narrow lane as it gets dark.

All he needed to say was, if it was you don't foget to carry lights in case you get caught out. But no, he decided it was time to bash people for their mode of transport they choose to use because of the actions of two.

He did not even stop to ask if they were all right or iffer them a lift to where they were going. Surely the better action if he was truly concerned anout the safety of these two.

Defo a troll.

In reply to Lion Bakes:
Not a troll, you can't have read the OP, in which the contributor writes: "As a cyclist I despair at the self-righteous stupidity of many cyclists".

It comes across as a plea for cyclists to use their noggins, not as a troll.

In reply to Bogwalloper:



So less than the speed limit motor vehicles? What’s the problem?


If you read the excellent West Mids police road safety blog they say that’s bollox - look at the wheels as that’s how you tell what the car’s doing.

I'd say a troll, what did the last paragraph have to do with the alleged "incident"?

"A bit like some of the ones who come through the villages round here at silent unstoppable speeds despite the prevalence of kids playing, people reversing out of driveways, horse-riders, blind corners. They have a death wish, and presumably will blame someone else."

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Do try to keep up with the thread.

"At its worst you see yobs on bikes (I don't consider them cyclists) swerving across the road, dressed in black, no lights, knowing no motorist will dare to hit them, irrespective of the chaos a sudden maneuver can cause."

I think it's pretty clear that the OP's cyclists fall into my "cyclists 'making mistakes'", but it's also clear you are determined to take offence at the merest hint that a cyclist might ever be in the wrong.

Just to be clear for you. I do not drive. I have ridden to and from school/university/work every day for the last 42 years. I complain regularly about being treated like shit by some drivers, and about the laughable punishment that drivers get for killing people.

But cyclists have to look out for themselves.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Cycling without lights "gets you to safety quicker" much like a drinking a bit too much in a pub and then driving home would "get you to safety quicker"?

In reply to Lion Bakes:

This post is just a troll, time to stop feeding it.

Troll or not, the OP has a valid point.
In fact, you confirm that by repeatedly saying 'caught out' as some sort of justification for not having lights. Why not, if in doubt, carry or fit lights?

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I'm beginning to think that you are a troll...

In reply to FactorXXX:

I'll agree - there is a valid point - at night / low lights, you should (legally) have lights.

It's the rest of the post that I believe is causing the discussion

In reply to Einriba:


You do know that it's possible to check profiles, don't you? And see posting histories.

If the OP is a Daily Mail journalist, they've been under cover here for at least six years.

If the OP is a 10 year old boy, they must have registered here when they were four.

In reply to captain paranoia:

It was said tongue in cheek....of course i actually didn't believe they were working for the DM or that they were 10 yrs old.

In reply to MarkJH:




Glad you wrote this, saving me the time. A shockingly poor counter-argument by Einriba.

In reply to Flinticus:
Ah well, each to their own. We're all allowed an opinion

In reply to MarkJH:

He does seem to have a bit of an "issue" with cyclists, looking at his posting history, but possibly just those wearing lycra.

In reply to Einriba:

I'll agree - there is a valid point - at night / low lights, you should (legally) have lights.
It's the rest of the post that I believe is causing the discussion

Really? Thought pretty much every post was about lights.

In reply to FactorXXX:
ok, the discussion around being a troll or not, and the seemingly anti-cycling sentiment on the post. Looking back - I don't see anyone saying that you shouldn't have lights. There are those stating that it could be circumstantial why they had no lights, but no one has said, cyclists don't need lights at night.

I think everyone would agree, lights at night are essential. You'd be crazy to argue otherwise. I think it's the way the original post was put across. The sentiment and structure of that last paragraph is totally out of place for the original point of 2 cyclists in mid-light.

In reply to GrahamD:


That's what I was trying to say: some cyclists don't realise how much more difficult it is for the drivers to see. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

I don't think I'll ever forget an incident - which I think I've mentioned before on UKC - where I was driving in traffic on a dim, wet evening in Edinburgh and passed a cyclist dressed entirely in black, on a black bike. He might actually have been a ninja; if he wasn't then he was wearing the outfit at any rate. Fortunately he was reasonably easy to see under the street lights, though a regularly wiped windscreen. However, as the traffic slowed approaching a junction and I started to indicate left, I thought to myself "I wonder of that cyclist has caught up?" So I looked long and hard in my nearside door mirror and sure enough, through the raindrops and city grime on the side window, I could *just* about see that he was about to pass me on my inside, so I held off my manoeuvre until he'd gone safely past. I don't think he even realised that I'd given way for him (certainly there was no acknowledgement if he did). Another driver might not have had that second thought before making the turn, and without having realised that the cyclist might actually be there would have stood little or no chance of seeing him, and fella me lad could suddenly have found himself having an unexpectedly bad day.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

As a student, before I learned to drive, I used to cycle everywhere. When cycling the city streets at night, I didn't use lights because a) I was too skint to buy batteries (pre-LED days!) and b) I thought that the streetlights were good enough to see by so car drivers could see me. My bike was dark blue and I generally dressed in black or dark colours. I would occasionally get a beep from passing cars, but put it down to pedantry rather than real problem. It was only after I drove a car at night did I realise just how poor visibility can be. I was very stupid, but not out of recklessness, just ignorance. My guess is that would be the case for many cyclists. Likewise I think that a lot of dangerous car driving comes from a lack of understanding of what it is like to cycle.

In reply to Rigid Raider:
Nope the term As a ... Is used to try and justify an inflamatory rant. It is used to try and give credibility to a rant that has no basis.

If he had stuck to the first paragraph and then said, it is getting darker earlier do not forget your lights, in case you are later back than you planned then that would be something we would all agree on. But he added two completely irrelevant paragraphs with deliberately inflammatory language that had nothing to do with the encounter.

A classic troll.

In reply to Pbob:


I reckon you might have a good point there.


And to the thread generally, people might find it helpful to try Chris Boardman's recent suggestion and think of/refer to cyclists as 'people on bikes' instead (and by extension 'people in cars' etc, I suppose). Have a go and see what you think

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Although I generally disagree with your posts, I must confess to a certain amount of (qualified) sympathy with this one. I live, work and cycle in this area and find that road users of all stripes demonstrate stunning disregard for other users.

On the night this was posted, I'd been driving on the backroads near Cockermouth and been stuck behind a pair of fairly oblivious cyclists who, bizarrely, doubled up on the straights and then tried to wave me past on the tortuous corners - this isn't untypical. On the other side of the coin, if I'm out with my partner I'll sometimes hang back and obstruct cars for a short distance because I've been a victim of miracle overtakes too many times on certain corners where cars are fast and there isn't room (as a driver coming the other way, I was nearly a victim of this yesterday).

I see the same with pedestrians on the roads in a lot of places, especially those near holiday developments and tourist attractions. The bottom line is that everyone is at least a bit stupid and many of us could do with taking a measure of personal responsibility and thinking about how our actions impact others in comparatively hazardous situations.

Where I have misgivings about this post, though, is that (perhaps unintentionally) it adopts the divisive kind of language which stokes some of the bad behaviour. Terms like 'self-righteous' drive a wedge between communities, condoning poor practice in the minds of some drivers (especially those with a gift for frustration) and enforcing the siege/victim mentality that's common among keyboard cyclists. (With both groups, these descriptions should obviously be taken to describe a subset only).

This last part might sound patronising. it isn't the intent, though, so I'll have a bash anyway. In my opinion, I'd consider that if (as I think your post is intended) you have an interest in the safety of all parties, taking a neutral tone and exercising some care over how you air your frustrations might help to drive some of the changes you would like to see. Probably won't happen, but at least it won't exacerbate things.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

the closest I've come to killing someone was when I was driving at night on a reasonably busy country road, just saw at last second a cyclist dressed in dark clothing with no lights or reflector. Just managed to swerve to avoid him. Fortunately nothing coming the other way. I've often thought that if I'd hit him that would be two lives ruined, his and mine. Even if I was completely blameless (which i was) it would'nt be something I'd ever be able to forget.

In reply to SpaceCaptainTheodore:

For me - your post is the best on this page. You've described perfectly what may be causing friction, and how to resolve. Your points are spot on. I wish I had the ability to get my thoughts out in this way.

In reply to Einriba:

Thanks for saying so - it might seem silly but that was really nice to hear. Now I just need to start demonstrating that level of clarity and relevance in some (any!) aspect of my real life, then I'll have things nailed.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Part of me thinks I shoudn't feed the troll, but...


So let me get this straight, if someone reverses out of their driveway and hits a cyclist, it's the cyclist's fault?

right.

As for your point about deference. Really. You think that cyclists should be aware that they are sub human and defer to superior beings in motor vehicles.

I despair

In reply to TheGeneralist:





I didn't read Dave's message like that at all. What he is saying is that cyclists shouldn't ride with the assumption that motorists don't make mistakes. That is, cyclists(and motorists) should always be aware that a driver could reverse into their path or a child could run out without warning. If they don't ride with that awareness then they do have some responsibility.

In reply to someone who said something about neds cycling about eratically and dangerously...

Had an interesting moment a week back when there was a bloke cycling down the road doing a wheelie. (doing a very good wheelie incidentally). Some eejit in a car was following along behind him with his hand pressed on the horn. You could tell the guy in the car was seriously pissed off. My initial reaction was that the cyclist was being a complete dangerous cock.

But then as I thought about it more, it occured to me that doing a wheelie down that road was possibly the safest way of cycling from A to B. Everyone noticed him, he looked like he was doing something dangerous and risky and different so the cars gave him a wide berth. There was no way at all that anyone was going to drive into him and SMIDSY. No way at all.


Contrast that to when you cycle normally down the side of a road and people in cars just treat you like you don't exist. Or if they do see you they don't give a shit.


Don't get me wrong, I don't condone the cyclists actions. But it's kind of depressing irony that acting like he was might actually have made him safer on the UK roads.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Brilliant, I bet he had an exciting time on the way down

In reply to Lusk:

I'll raise you... youtube.com/watch?v=iO7_Fq56g2c&

Doesn't really get going until the 3min mark but worth watching it all anyway.

In reply to TheGeneralist:

I'm sure I heard somewhere that you are less likely to be knocked off your bike by a car if you aren't wearing a helmet than if you are. The report suggested that driver's viewed those without helmets as being more vulnerable, and so took fewer risky manouvers. I'm not sure what that says.

In reply to Pbob:


Market for transparent helmets ?

In reply to Pbob:


I think those studies are more an illustration of curious human psychology than an inarguable case against wearing helmets

In reply to kevin stephens:


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about Kev - can you put it another way? In English for instance.
Anyway aren't you in Kalymnos indulging your passion for a man's game? Put aside the mundanities of cycling in the rain in Britain and enjoy the sun, the climbing and the Mythos. 'av one for me.