Stealth ramblers!

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Thank you, Danny. That's exactly it.

You know, I've read this group pretty much every day for three years,
occasionally posting. I therefore know it's predilections, but this one has
me a little surprised. I should have thought that in a general way, making a
small effort to enhance your visibility in these situations was a
no-brainer, but it would seem that anything that helps the dreaded cagers is
evil and tantamount to surrender. What gives?

We're all human. Drivers, in general, drive above their capability, and at
night drive faster than their stopping distance would suggest they should.
Anything that one can do to alleviate the danger in this situation would
seem to be a wise move - walking abreast over the whole lane in dark
clothing strikes me as slightly reckless. It's all very well to cant about
contributory negligence and what drivers /should/ do, but everyday real
world experience in urban and rural situations shows me we're very far from
perfection, and I don't really think sacrificing others on the altar of
non-motorised self righteousness is particularly productive, however adamant
the assertion.

I would again point out that I'm not a health and safety obsessive, I don't
wear a lid, and I wouldn't enforce any high-vis, I just thought it might be
good practice, as recommended by the highway code, whose guidelines many
radicals here readily assert when its' ministrations suit their case. I
would also highlight the point that many of those arguing for the right to
stealth wouldn't do it on their bikes.

Standards of road use in this country are appalling, but just because one
does not have an engine doesn't automatically constitute moral superiority.

Respectfully,

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

"Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<stuff>

I reckon they were in the wrong for filling the road, but not for being
dark. I've played this game too - if I can't see a ped in dark clothes, I'm
cycling too fast for my lights. Nearly all my riding at the moment is in the
dark on unlit rural roads, so I'm not speaking from inexperience here :-)

Had they been all lit up and hi-vis, they'd have still been in your way, and
would still have complained about you asking to shift. But had they been
walking so as to allow a sensible path through, and not complained, I
suspect it wouldn't have been a problem.

cheers,
clive

Tim Dunne wrote on 06/02/2007 01:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I would again point out that I'm not a health and safety obsessive, I don't
wear a lid, and I wouldn't enforce any high-vis, I just thought it might be
good practice, as recommended by the highway code, whose guidelines many
radicals here readily assert when its' ministrations suit their case. I
would also highlight the point that many of those arguing for the right to
stealth wouldn't do it on their bikes.

But at the end of their day that is their choice and their prerogative
to walk down those lanes dressed in anything they choose that is legal
without people intruding. I get lots of people telling me I should wear
a helmet with equally good safety concerned intentions as yourself
towards the ramblers. I try to remain polite but as with many here it
is our personal informed choice and we should be entitled to make it
unless and until they are required by law without busybodies continually
interfering.

If one is going to start objecting to the way people choose to use
country lanes at night one could start questioning your choice to cycle
there at all on safety grounds - a twisty narrow lane down which boy
racers drive too fast could be seen by many as unsafe if you met one of
them on a corner, no matter how lit up you are. Would you have taken
kindly to a concerned walker telling you so or telling you you should be
using a cycle path not the road at night? I think not and neither would
many here but they seem to think it acceptable to take such a stance
towards these walkers. Its a funny old world.

And in the spirit of trying not to be sad that is the last I shall say
on it. Promise ;-)

--
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:

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

Surely there should be a presumption that it is good practice to follow the
guidance of the highway code?

Quoted message said:

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?

Cyclecraft advises against this:
Specifically, "the decorated xmas tree approach..... has little merit"
and warns that multiple lights are just as likely to cause confusion as help
visibility eg two lights on a cycle may read as a car further away.

pk

p.k. said the following on 06/02/2007 08:28:

Quoted message said:

Cyclecraft advises against this:
Specifically, "the decorated xmas tree approach..... has little merit"
and warns that multiple lights are just as likely to cause confusion as help
visibility eg two lights on a cycle may read as a car further away.

Unless the two (front) lights are one above the other as on my bike -
one permanently fixed to the fork crown, another clipped to the bars.
I'm sure someone will say that isn't a good idea either!

Last night I saw a cyclist with a candle on the front. At least, I
assume it was a candle because it was about the same brightness and was
flickering :-)

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

Martin Bulmer said the following on 05/02/2007 23:58:

Quoted message said:

Saw a stealth cyclist yesterday, disguised as a road.

That's unusual.

The ones I encounter are normally disguised as trees and hedges :-)

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

Tony Raven said:

Tim Dunne wrote on 06/02/2007 01:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I would again point out that I'm not a health and safety obsessive, I don't
wear a lid, and I wouldn't enforce any high-vis, I just thought it might be
good practice, as recommended by the highway code, whose guidelines many
radicals here readily assert when its' ministrations suit their case. I
would also highlight the point that many of those arguing for the right to
stealth wouldn't do it on their bikes.

But at the end of their day that is their choice and their prerogative
to walk down those lanes dressed in anything they choose that is legal
without people intruding. I get lots of people telling me I should wear
a helmet with equally good safety concerned intentions as yourself
towards the ramblers. I try to remain polite but as with many here it
is our personal informed choice and we should be entitled to make it
unless and until they are required by law without busybodies continually
interfering.

indeed and futher, if you can't see the dark peds you woun't see the
fallen rock or tree or well the idea i'm sure you is there, if you can't
see the road and stop particuly in those sort of roads where stone walls
do drop the odd bolder, etc.

Quoted message said:

If one is going to start objecting to the way people choose to use
country lanes at night one could start questioning your choice to cycle
there at all on safety grounds - a twisty narrow lane down which boy
racers drive too fast could be seen by many as unsafe if you met one of
them on a corner, no matter how lit up you are. Would you have taken
kindly to a concerned walker telling you so or telling you you should be
using a cycle path not the road at night? I think not and neither would
many here but they seem to think it acceptable to take such a stance
towards these walkers. Its a funny old world.

And in the spirit of trying not to be sad that is the last I shall say
on it. Promise ;-)

heh

roger

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rob Morley said:

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.

to be fair it depends on the lane if it's a wider one ie not two lane
but cars can pass just about, then they can be a bit dogy with folks
driving too fast.

but on the narrow single track ie you can only pass at passing places,
in a car that is. then in my experance you don't get boy racers, if you
drive too fast you will not make the courner, and fly into the arms of
one of the old Ent's that line the older lanes.

you can hear and at night much more so and see the lights, fast cars are
not really a problem on older narrow lanes.

fast driving is very rare and unlikely to undanger any one but them
selfs. they stand a greater chance of sliding off the road than plowing
into some one.

any well to show off which is what boy racers do it's easyer in urban
places, urban free ways and the like, tesco car parks.

even nicked they stay clear of the lanes, to narrow, too much chance of
getting caught? get the odd lovers lane sort of thing, but full beam
soon makes them relise that this lane to nowhere does go some where...

roger

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Quoting Tim Dunne <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

me a little surprised. I should have thought that in a general way, making a
small effort to enhance your visibility in these situations was a
no-brainer, but it would seem that anything that helps the dreaded cagers is
evil and tantamount to surrender. What gives?

What gives is that a) there isn't any actual indication that people get
killed like that because b) as you will realise if you think about it for
a moment, it is practically impossible to be surprised by a motor car on a
country road in the dark, since they are noisy and have big headlights.

Furthermore some of the replies have seemed to suggest that peds are to
blame for not being visible when in fact the onus is on cyclists to make
sure they can see where they are going.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Olethros, February - a weekend.

Simon Brooke said:

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.

"Fortunately" - so you hope they will be accident victims?

I sometimes walk at night along a lane which several generations of my
ancestors have used in the past. They probably wore the dark clothing
which was usual in their time. So did many others. There is very
extensive precedent for doing so - people have been walking along dark
lanes in dark clothes for millenia. If I choose to do something
different (i.e. be more visible) then I can. I do not see why I should
be expected to do so simply to enable motorists to drive too fast
without suffering the consequences. They are the ones creating the
danger, they must be the ones who act to reduce it.

Jon

Tim Dunne said:

Cue rant...

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
wide. It's pitch black - I have both cateye 10 watters on, a flashing white
led as a marker, bar end flashers, a steady and a flashing led on the rear
and hi-vis vest. In short I'm not inconspicuous.

Just coming round a bend slowly I pick out a white led torch flick on and
off ahead. As I swing round, I spot two walkers in dark clothes at the edge
of the road - holding my tongue I shake my head and press on. Up ahead, I
can just see something in the gloom, as I get closer my light is reflecting
of something metallic and moving - I'm expecting full on stealth cyclist,
but no, it's *five* male ramblers (wooly hats, trousers in socks etc.)
walking abreast the full width of the lane - my light picked out the walking
sticks. I was about 30 meters away when I saw them, their camoflage being
somewhat effective.

Tim,

Ride within what you can see to be clear.

'Not being able to see an obstruction' is not the same as 'being able to
see that there is no obstruction'.

Cheers,
Al.

Danny Colyer said:

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.

I'm sure you'll be equally grateful to have it pointed out to you that
you would be safer wearing a helmet while you're cycling.

p.k. said:

Tony Raven said:

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

Surely there should be a presumption that it is good practice to follow the
guidance of the highway code?

Care to tell us what the HC says about cycle paths?

Then you can compare and contrast with the statistical evidence.

Simon Brooke said:

...the chances of
Darwin catching up with those ramblers is fortunately high.

I hope you didn't mean to write that.

Tim Dunne said:

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

Quoted message said:

It's probably your lights.

No. It was dark and they were wearing dark clothes. Anyone would stuggle
under those conditions...

Quoted message said:

Car lights would have picked them out.

Not from round a bend they wouldn't

If they were round a bend, they could have been togged from head to foot
in reflectives and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

Martin Bulmer said:

Saw a stealth cyclist yesterday

He wasn't a very good one, then.

"Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

We're all human. Drivers, in general, drive above their capability, and
at
night drive faster than their stopping distance would suggest they
should.
Anything that one can do to alleviate the danger in this situation would
seem to be a wise move - walking abreast over the whole lane in dark
clothing strikes me as slightly reckless.

I expect they're old enough to make their own decisions. What stopped them
moving to the side if a car aproached?

Al C-F said:

I'm sure you'll be equally grateful to have it pointed out to you that
you would be safer wearing a helmet while you're cycling.

Whoosh!

--
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

Buck said the following on 07/02/2007 08:49:

Quoted message said:

What can you do? Oldie bashing is not really in my nature and the RA
mirror the
attitude that ramblers are the only people who should be able to access the
countryside. I have had chats with the RA in the past about the
attitudes of
members only to get stock responses about the right to roam.

Well, if you're on a cycle route or bridleway, you also have a right to
roam, in a sense. Whilst you do have to give way to walkers, AIUI they
are not allowed to deliberately obstruct you either. There's nothing
that says they have to be gracious about letting you past though - that
just comes down to good old-fashioned courtesy, something that many RA
types seem to lack whether it's towards cyclists or non-RA walkers.

What I find odd, from my own experiences, is that there is supposedly
animosity between horse riders and cyclists on bridleways. I've never
encountered that at all - quite the opposite.

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

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>typed

Quoted message said:

Well, if you're on a cycle route or bridleway, you also have a right to
roam, in a sense. Whilst you do have to give way to walkers, AIUI they
are not allowed to deliberately obstruct you either. There's nothing
that says they have to be gracious about letting you past though - that
just comes down to good old-fashioned courtesy, something that many RA
types seem to lack whether it's towards cyclists or non-RA walkers.

Quoted message said:

What I find odd, from my own experiences, is that there is supposedly
animosity between horse riders and cyclists on bridleways. I've never
encountered that at all - quite the opposite.

<pedant>

I don't think tricycles are legal on bridleways...

<pedant>

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.