I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
I though it was bad enough in the daylight last June, when they dived about in the traffic without regard to courtesy or safety - but add to that mix a belief that because they can easily see cars, then car drivers can easily see them and you presumably lose one or two a week.
I feel better now.
John
P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all virtuous.
P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all virtuous.
Without wishing to be rude, might there be an element of risk compensation on yhour part?
It may be interesting too look at some stats on cyclist fatalities in Cambridge. Car drivers might be more aware of stealth cyclists in Cambridge than they are of brightly lit cyclists elsewhere?
Just a random, unbacked up thought of mine...
-- Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot', you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'. ... erm, how do they figure that one out?
"Eatmorepies" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've
never
Quoted message said:
seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a
sufficiently large
Quoted message said:
angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
It's the ones that you didn't see at all who are at risk, of course. Do you have any kind of guesstimate of how many that might be? I note that you numbers in your table add up to 100%
P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all virtuous.
Without wishing to be rude, might there be an element of risk compensation on yhour part?
It may be interesting too look at some stats on cyclist fatalities in Cambridge. Car drivers might be more aware of stealth cyclists in Cambridge than they are of brightly lit cyclists elsewhere?
Just a random, unbacked up thought of mine...
Na, more likely they're full of their own self importance academics and students and totally immune from accidents....
Niel, who works in a University and see's it all to often.
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
<snip rant>
Quoted message said:
I feel better now.
Hmmm...I think you are like me. I drive, ride a motorbike and drive a car. My Anthrotech recumbent looks like Blackpool at Christmas cos I'm *paranoid* about dozy car drivers. But...I have been there, if you can see them, you can avoid them, at least until it hurts.
Another thought, I mustn't post while [censored] :-(
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:35:29 -0000 someone who may be "Eatmorepies" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
90+% - stealth clothing
What proportion of cars are not painted yellow?
In a war of escalating brightness it is easy to see who the winners will be. Those with the largest surface area for bright paint and those who have an engine to generate electricity for lights. That is why the road "safety" lobby are in favour of such a war.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
In message <[email hidden]>, Eatmorepies <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
So, what's the problem - you saw them all............. -- Chris French, Leeds
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see pedestrians & cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands out quite well) . When a car approaches they disappear. One might argue that cars should be on sidelights only.
In message <[email hidden]>, Eatmorepies <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
So, what's the problem - you saw them all.............
Exactly. They were in a city, under street lights. Might as well complain about the lack of lights and reflective clothing on the pedestrians.
Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see pedestrians & cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands out quite well) . When a car approaches they disappear. One might argue that cars should be on sidelights only.
Thats made me think about it in a whole new light.
Actually it has
Car headlights are a lot more about shouting LOOKOUT I'M COMING than about seeing things with.
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
I though it was bad enough in the daylight last June, when they dived about in the traffic without regard to courtesy or safety - but add to that mix a belief that because they can easily see cars, then car drivers can easily see them and you presumably lose one or two a week.
I feel better now.
John
P.S. riding my unlit local lanes at night I use a bright yellow Altura jacket, a 2" multiple LED rear lamp with lots of refracting prisms and a minimum 5W front filament lamp. (and some sparkly reflecting plastic elephants my wife gave me to pin on my bumbag). It makes me feel all virtuous.
I think they can get away with it because there are so many cyclists in Cambridge that drivers expect them, stealth mode or not.
I was driving round Cambridge last night looking for my hotel I've never seen so many daft cyclists packed into one place.
25% - no lights 25% - very dim lights 25% - small LEDs only 25% - decent lights, bright and large enough to subtend a sufficiently large angle at the eye. 90+% - stealth clothing
Go out on a quiet streetlamp lit street. You can easly see pedestrians & cyclists several hundred yards away (and black stands out quite well) . When a car approaches they disappear. One might argue that cars should be on sidelights only.
As they used to, and there was briefly the attempt to introduce "dim-dip". But, assuming "very dim lights" means "merely the legal standard lights", and "small LEDs only" includes anything short of an EL300 not just the poxy little glowworm things, Eatmorepies observations roughly match mine.
But a brief study of accident data shows it isn't as dangerous as he thinks, though it would be nice if those using no lights or glowworm LEDs got some (especially those riding off pavements and onto the road at random places).
On 16 Jan 2005 08:59:25 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be [email hidden] (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
But a brief study of accident data shows it isn't as dangerous as he thinks, though it would be nice if those using no lights or glowworm LEDs got some
ISTR studies, such as in Copenhagen and Bristol, seemed to show that using lights was if anything more dangerous than not doing so for cyclists. However, that does assume the lit and unlit cyclists do the same things in the same way.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:08:18 +0100 someone who may be m-gineering <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
this reasoning presumes that both groups (with/without light) cover the same distances at night
As I posted earlier, "However, that does assume the lit and unlit cyclists do the same things in the same way."
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
