Stealth ramblers!

Tim Dunne wrote on 05/02/2007 08:57 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The argument you are making is similar to the one that used to be made
about dress and rape and which is no longer tolerated.

For heavens sake, get a grip. Being visible when in the raod at night is
just common sense... I take it then that when out on your bike you do the
full stealth thing with only the legally required lights and no other
measures to improve your visibility. If not, why not?

No but I am against the presumption that because they choose not to they
are somehow at fault. If I don't festoon myself in lights at night and
do stick with the legal maximum lighting on my bike am I going to find
myself blamed for contributory negligence if I get hit? Because that is
the start of the slope you are on if you start requiring people to wear
more than the law requires at night rather than placing the
responsibility wear it lies. And if the driving numpties start to learn
that everything on the road will be lit and reflective they will only
compensate by driving faster so better they learn that there can be dark
objects on the road.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Quoted message said:

when out on your bike you do the
full stealth thing with only the legally required lights and no other
measures to improve your visibility

So the "full stealth thing" is front and rear lights, rear relector, pedal
reflectors etc. From experience, this is more than sufficient to be seen
easily.

The only complaint I'd have against the walkers is if they were slow to
make space for you to pass - it would have been inconsiderate of them.

Tim Dunne said:

When walking down the centre of a lane on a dark night I would suiggest it's
sensible to keep to one side (as suggested in the HC) or to wear something
light or reflective in colour. I don't know what you have against it, but
even the Highway Code suggests it.

Can I mention (without stoking the flames) that on dark country lanes
pedestrians and cyclists stand a chance of hearing approaching cars.

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email hidden] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email hidden]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Tim Dunne wrote on 05/02/2007 01:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I just feel that in the situation they were in, they should take a bit
more care. It would be so easy to round a corner in a car and find
yourself coming up behind these guys too fast to do anything about it...

Which is where the old adage of driving or cycling so you can stop
within the distance you can see to be clear comes in. If you can't,
which is what you are suggesting above, you are driving/cycling too fast.

While this is true, it is also true that the overwhelming majority of
drivers in these islands do habitually drive too fast, so the chances of
Darwin catching up with those ramblers is fortunately high.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Tim Dunne wrote on 05/02/2007 08:47 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

And how many cases of that happening from the approx 700 pedestrians
killed every year have you heard of?

I honestly don't know, but as I've said, acting sensibly doesn't seem
such a bad policy.

Are you usually this intemperate of a Monday morning or did you just
have a bad night?

Is it intemperate to point out that the scenario you propose to justify
people having to wear PPE when out for a walk does not appear to happen
in real life?

There's big a difference between wearing personal protective equipment and
being strung out across the whole width of the road. Being strong out
across the road is neither safe not considerate, irrespective of what
they're wearing.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the [censored], the wise man plants courgettes

Simon Brooke wrote on 05/02/2007 11:48 +0100:

Quoted message said:

While this is true, it is also true that the overwhelming majority of
drivers in these islands do habitually drive too fast, so the chances of
Darwin catching up with those ramblers is fortunately high.

I see no evidence of that. As I and others have said, on a dark country
lane you get a lot of notice of a car coming your way. Inconsiderate?
Yes. Dangerous? No. If it were country lanes would be no go areas for
cyclists at night.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Tony Raven said:

Tim Dunne wrote on 05/02/2007 08:57 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The argument you are making is similar to the one that used to be made
about dress and rape and which is no longer tolerated.

For heavens sake, get a grip. Being visible when in the raod at night
is just common sense... I take it then that when out on your bike you
do the full stealth thing with only the legally required lights and no
other measures to improve your visibility. If not, why not?

No but I am against the presumption that because they choose not to they
are somehow at fault. If I don't festoon myself in lights at night and
do stick with the legal maximum lighting on my bike am I going to find
myself blamed for contributory negligence if I get hit? Because that is
the start of the slope you are on if you start requiring people to wear
more than the law requires at night rather than placing the
responsibility wear it lies. And if the driving numpties start to learn
that everything on the road will be lit and reflective they will only
compensate by driving faster so better they learn that there can be dark
objects on the road.

You are just_zis-guy, and I claim my £5

I recognise the mealy mouthed whining style.

You've made a load of posts to this thread trying to make out that that
you shouldn't need to wear reflective clothing or take other sensible
precautions.

Well, in an ideal world, true, but most of us live in the real one with
tired drivers/drunk drivers/boy racers/incompetant drivers, and we'd
like to maximise our chances of staying alive.

So FFS, button it.

Pete wrote on 05/02/2007 13:24 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I recognise the mealy mouthed whining style.

You've made a load of posts to this thread trying to make out that that
you shouldn't need to wear reflective clothing or take other sensible
precautions.

Well, in an ideal world, true, but most of us live in the real one with
tired drivers/drunk drivers/boy racers/incompetant drivers, and we'd
like to maximise our chances of staying alive.

So FFS, button it.

And top of the morning to you too sir.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Tim Dunne said:

"Slark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Maybe. I have a degree of sympathy with the walkers - it's difficult
to see how they could injure others by walking into
them at high-speed.

I just think that if they want to avoid being flattened by a car, it might
be a good idea to meet other roadusers half way and wear something
reflective.

Tim

if it's a country lane, unlike most roads you should expect to meet
people, animals and what not who will not be lit, the road will be
slipery and fairly rought, so traction is less. In car the lights and
noice will be noticed by most walkers be they bipedal or quadpedal.

a bike has niether the lights or the noice to be noticed, hence the
problems. if you can't see them your driving too fast lanes are like
that.

roger

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Tony Raven said the following on 05/02/2007 07:53:

Quoted message said:

Which is where the old adage of driving or cycling so you can stop
within the distance you can see to be clear comes in. If you can't,
which is what you are suggesting above, you are driving/cycling too fast.

Which is very all well in theory, but Tim mentioned that the road "often
suffers with boy racers". Boy-racers, on the whole, don't give a stuff
about driving within the distance they can see to be clear, so making
yourself as visible as possible just seems sensible. The epitaph "He
was in the right" isn't much use.

if it is a narrow lane then i'd be suprised get during summer a few
following too close down the very narrow lanes, they soon back off once
they hit the pot holes etc, which being local i know where are and just
nip though but they following too close land full in.

boy racers will not tend to go down old single track the lane will
scrach and batter the car.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you can be lit up like Blackpool Illuminations, but if
someone comes round a bend too fast it may not help much!

if its a single track lane they will hug a tree soon enought.

roger

Tim Dunne said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Is it intemperate to point out that the scenario you propose to
justify people having to wear PPE when out for a walk does not appear
to happen in real life?

When walking down the centre of a lane on a dark night I would suiggest it's
sensible to keep to one side (as suggested in the HC) or to wear something
light or reflective in colour. I don't know what you have against it, but
even the Highway Code suggests it.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/01.htm

yes i'm sure it does but in narrow twisting lanes as the OP brought up
by the time you can see the reflective its too lane and as my other post
says lanes are quite differnat if you will meet wildlife and all sorts
you muct beable to stop. that means driving as fast as you can see, so
thats at most 30mph even at night in a car, in day be around 20mph and a
bike should be lower again as it has niether the brakes nor the lights
to spot and warn.

Quoted message said:

I'm not a health and safety nazi, H*lm*t advocate or other single issue
fanatic, but I do believe that it's an imperfect world occupied by imperfect
humans and helping yourself and each other often goes a long way to making
things better.

the whole point of country lanes is that its not urban so you may meet a
tractor, cow, horces, sheep, or well almost any thing, unlike most roads
the problibity of having to stop dead as there is something/one there
unlight at night is high.

Quoted message said:

Since you seem to be spoiling for some kind of argument I'll withdraw from
this particular discussion as it's serving little productive purpose.

Tim

no its a relistic idea as to ones duty if travelling in vehical in the
lanes.

roger

Simon Brooke wrote on 05/02/2007 11:51 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There's big a difference between wearing personal protective equipment and
being strung out across the whole width of the road. Being strong out
across the road is neither safe not considerate, irrespective of what
they're wearing.

Agreed but not the basis of the original complaint which was about their
visibility.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Tim Dunne said:

Cycling back today from a pleasing 65 miler, down a dark, narrow back lane
in a rural area. It's a winding lane with no paths and is just about 1 car

I'm with you on this. When walking on country roads at night, being well
lit and walking in single or perhaps double file is sensible.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

In article <[email hidden]>, Roger
Merriman
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

boy racers will not tend to go down old single track the lane will
scrach and batter the car.

Depends on the type of boy racer - one with an old Impreza may have a
different outlook than the proud owner of Nova 1.2 with a flash paint
job.

Tim Dunne said:

"Nigel Cliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Try shutting one eye. That one may not have the receptors burned out
to "daylight", and might then pickup things afterwards more quickly.

Excellent tip, thank you.

It was what I used to do when I used to commute along unlit roads.
If your vision is better in one eye than the other, shut the one with
the better vision. (I think I read somewhere most people are right eyed).

However when I upgraded to 6W+10W of cateye halagon lights on the front,
I found that car drivers were many times more likely to dip their lights
when they met me.

Martin.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:03:16 GMT, "Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Oh, and while I'm ranting, what's the thing about not dipping lights with
some bozos? It's bad enough being blinded by the twunts but after they've
passed you can't see a sodding thing...

I always look away from the car (to the left) as it's about to pass. Peripheral
vision is adequate to alert you to any change in the conditions ahead in the
couple of seconds it takes the car to pass and if it does dazzle you your
central vision will still be intact once it's passed.

Tim Dunne said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Is it intemperate to point out that the scenario you propose to
justify people having to wear PPE when out for a walk does not appear
to happen in real life?

When walking down the centre of a lane on a dark night I would
suiggest it's sensible to keep to one side (as suggested in the HC)

Which side of the centre of the dark lane should you keep to?

A

Tony Raven said:

No but I am against the presumption that because they choose not to they
are somehow at fault.

I thought the presumption was that the the ramblers might like to be
made aware of how difficult they were to see. Had I been one of the
ramblers in that situation, I imagine I'd have been grateful to the OP
for his concern.

--
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

Tim Dunne said:

Oh, and while I'm ranting, what's the thing about not dipping lights
with some bozos? It's bad enough being blinded by the twunts but
after they've passed you can't see a sodding thing...

Tim

Close one eye until the light has passed.

Saw a stealth cyclist yesterday, disguised as a road. Difficult to see even
in daylight.
--

Martin Bulmer

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Which side of the centre of the dark lane should you keep to?

I suggest you look at the HC, item 2:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/01.htm

It's not rocket science.

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it’s easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it’s
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped