CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 56 min ago

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 8:29pm
Any driver driving on instinct (what is that anyway something out of Star Wars?!) needs to have their licence revoked for their own good.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 8:24pm
My car is black. Ought I to have it resprayed in florescent yellow so cyclists don't run into it?

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 7:44pm
DGG1941 wrote:Living in the Surrey hills I see a large number of road cyclists at all times of the week and am constantly amazed at how many are dressed from helmet to pedal in BLACK. Do they have a death wish? Or no washing facilities at home? Or it cool and fashionable to look this way?

OK I may be exaggerating about the number that are so dressed but I wonder what we have to do to convince those that are to make themselves visible. Have they never driven a car with the sun in their eyes and not been able to see to clearly what was on the road under the shaded trees? Add a wet road (not difficult at this time of year) and the driver is relying on instinct!

Perhaps we should ask how they would feel if their partner/parent/sibling collided with a cyclist whilst driving because they couldn't see them.

OK, rant over. But I'd be curious to understand why some cyclist dress this way and whether I'm a lone voice of concern on their behalf.

Sorry but let's change this slightly...


Shopping in the Supermarket I see a large number of people walking in the car park all times of the week and am constantly amazed at how many are dressed in BLACK. Do they have a death wish? Or no washing facilities at home? Or it cool and fashionable to look this way?

OK I may be exaggerating about the number that are so dressed but I wonder what we have to do to convince those that are to make themselves visible. Have they never driven a car with the sun in their eyes and not been able to see to clearly what was in the car park? Add a wet car park surface (not difficult at this time of year) and the driver is relying on instinct!

Perhaps we should ask how they would feel if their partner/parent/sibling collided with a shopper whilst driving because they couldn't see them.

OK, rant over. But I'd be curious to understand why some shoppers dress this way and whether I'm a lone voice of concern on their behalf.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 7:15pm
Usual replies:

If they're not visible, how did you see them?

What about all those black cars? Those deathtraps don't even have pedal or wheel reflectors, or reflective sidewalls.

Wearing black (or dark blue as I often do) doesn't matter much. I've got good lights and reflectors.

Drivers in my family obey Highway code rule 125. Why don't yours?

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 6:48pm
Can't say I've noticed, myself.


Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 6:47pm
Why do so many motorists drive such that they can't stop in the distance they can see to be clear?

Amazingly men in business suits are visible, as are taxi's, so are cyclists in black.

Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

26 October 2014 - 6:43pm
Living in the Surrey hills I see a large number of road cyclists at all times of the week and am constantly amazed at how many are dressed from helmet to pedal in BLACK. Do they have a death wish? Or no washing facilities at home? Or it cool and fashionable to look this way?

OK I may be exaggerating about the number that are so dressed but I wonder what we have to do to convince those that are to make themselves visible. Have they never driven a car with the sun in their eyes and not been able to see to clearly what was on the road under the shaded trees? Add a wet road (not difficult at this time of year) and the driver is relying on instinct!

Perhaps we should ask how they would feel if their partner/parent/sibling collided with a cyclist whilst driving because they couldn't see them.

OK, rant over. But I'd be curious to understand why some cyclist dress this way and whether I'm a lone voice of concern on their behalf.

Re: Manchester Ship Canal

26 October 2014 - 4:19pm
Boat museum to Eastham is really easy, out of museum by hotel and up to and under motorway and right at small roundabout, straight on at bend to run parallel to M53. At the big M53 roundabout you need care to take 2nd exit into the industrial estate (hop on LH shared use path if you want but no dropped kerbs and you give way to occasionally busy depots). On RH side is signed path back under M53 into 'Vauxhall/Bowaters' turn left and cycle through traffic lights and past VX main gate (shared use on RH side from just beyond) at roundabout at end turn right and cross the railway lines, follow through Eastham refinery and pop out at top of hill at Country Park - turn left for Eastham Village or right down to Eastham Ferry pub and beyond to Port Sunlight etc. This route is always very quiet even mid week unless you hit it at rush hour or around 2pm ish - must be a shift change but even then it's not actually that bad.

Re: Manchester Ship Canal

26 October 2014 - 7:04am
Re. The penny ferry at Thelwall, it is possible to get across on your cycle for 11p but note it is only open at certain times of the day. There's more info on it here:

http://allthingswarrington.net/Places/P ... ferry.html

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 6:15pm
jezer wrote:I've never been called for jury service, and as I'm not far off 70 (which I believe is the cut off point), ...

They've recently raised the age limit to 75. I have sat on a jury and as I'm also not far off 70, I thought it wouldn't happen again, but it's a bit like raising the age for old age pension and bus passes.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 5:37pm
jezer wrote:I mean I'd like to challenge a jury made up of mainly motorists, passing a decision on others like them indicating that vunarable road users have no signifience.
I'm sure you'd try the Defendant strictly on the evidence like the other 11 Jurors, as directed by the Judge . Whatever the verdict "said" would be of no importance in its determination, of course.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 4:06pm
I mean I'd like to challenge a jury made up of mainly motorists, passing a decision on others like them indicating that vunarable road users have no signifience.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 3:32pm
jezer wrote:I've never been called for jury service, and as I'm not far off 70 (which I believe is the cut off point), it is unlikely to happen now. I would certainly like to be involved with a case involving dangerouse driving, at least to argue the point about motorists at fault in causing death or serious injury to vulnerable road users.
What exactly do you mean?

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 3:09pm
I've never been called for jury service, and as I'm not far off 70 (which I believe is the cut off point), it is unlikely to happen now. I would certainly like to be involved with a case involving dangerouse driving, at least to argue the point about motorists at fault in causing death or serious injury to vulnerable road users.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 3:06pm
Bicycler wrote:It's the legislation that is the problem. Asking juries to decide upon whether something falls below or well below average standards of driving is full of problems. Chief amongst which is the fact that many or most drivers regularly do things which they shouldn't do. The law effectively legitimises types of dangerous driving if they become commonplace. I'd happily have hitting stationary individuals or objects as a strict liability offence. If you hit somebody who is stationary in the road then your driving is self-evidently dangerous unless you can come up with proof of a truly exceptional reason (immediate and total brake failure is the only one which springs to mind) why it happened despite competent driving.
+1
Who's in charge of the vehicle?
The driver
So the driver is liable,it is his/her responsibility to drive safely is it not?
In the case in question the cyclist was absolved of all blame,so the drivers were driving dangerously.
It's that simple.It's that simple as they crashed into him because they couldn't see where they were going.
If you're driving in the UK apparently are able to drive whilst blinded by the sun in the hope there'll be nothing in their way to crash into because that's what you do isn't it?.
In a sane and right thinking society it'd be obvious who were a danger to society.
Unfortunately this isn't a sane and right thinking society.
So a driver can kill someone with a motor vehicle,have a well prepared sob story ready for the trial and get off with either a slap on the wrist or a not guilty verdict.

Is the UK a backward nation?

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 2:41pm
It's the legislation that is the problem. Asking juries to decide upon whether something falls below or well below average standards of driving is full of problems. Chief amongst which is the fact that many or most drivers regularly do things which they shouldn't do. The law effectively legitimises types of dangerous driving if they become commonplace. I'd happily have hitting stationary individuals or objects as a strict liability offence. If you hit somebody who is stationary in the road then your driving is self-evidently dangerous unless you can come up with proof of a truly exceptional reason (immediate and total brake failure is the only one which springs to mind) why it happened despite competent driving.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 2:16pm
Don't like the verdict, so abolish juries.
A very slippery slope, that we are too far down already.

Neil

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 12:52pm
Even if you got rid of the jury on the grounds of conflict of interest (they're likely to all be drivers, less likely to be cyclists), you would have magistrates / judges who drove to work that morning... Judge / magistrate could issue some kind of instruction etc to the jury to say that driving over someone on the side of the road most definitely fell within the careless / dangerous domain, and the jury should decide which... They issue advice on everything else.

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 8:25am
It would be nice to think that the rest of society felt the same way as you or I about inadequate driving when incidents do happen though

Re: Is there a case for ding away with juires ....

25 October 2014 - 8:10am

My thoughts are with the victims family and friends. We've seen outcomes like this too many times before.

The problem lies with driving standards. If driving standards improve then such tragedies should not occur.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions