Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So drivers shouldn't put their lights on in urban

> areas because everyone else does it?


Ahem Loz! As far as I am aware, it is a legal requirement that drivers use their vehicle lights. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe that cyclists are under a similar statutory duty to wear - e.g. - a fluorescent vest.


Whilst I am pretty certain that high visibility clothes make cyclists more conspicuous, such garments cannot take the place of competent cycling and driving. As alluded to earlier, I wear the whole kit and kaboodle (high viz vest, ruck sack cover, waist band, and ankle/wrist strips - though not necessarily all at once), but as DC suggests, lights (as required by law) should be sufficient.

Legal issue aside, I disagree. I really like it when cyclists wear hi-viz stuff; I can see them from a distance and I know what they are and can react accordingly to their generally slower speed. Those little lights, especially the ones that don't flash, really just fade into the background with every other light on the streets of London, especially when it's raining.


Take it from a driver - hi-viz vests make *lots* of difference.

Ah ha - a driver who likes the lights that flash. I've now taken to using two lights at night - one that is solidly on at rack level and the other that flashes on my helmet. Apparently, the flashing ones get spotted easier and the solid ones help people judge distance/speed more effectively.


I wear a high-viz vest most of the time when cycling but there are days where it's particularly hot when it would be nice to think that the bright red or blue top I'm wearing should be sufficient if I'm cycling as I should (i.e. obeying the rules of the road) and drivers are as observant as they should be. The only time I don't have one on is if I hop on a Boris bike when I wasn't intending to travel by bike since it's not something I'd carry around. That's also the only time that I don't wear a helmet.


I'm not sure I'd like it to be a law though since it does then add to the perception that cycling is more dangerous than it really is and takes the onus off drivers to be doing what they should be doing anyhow. SMIDSY shouldn't be an excuse in any instance where the cyclist has been acting lawfully and predictably regardless of high-vis. And if you go to countries where there is more urban cycling (Berlin/Copenhagen as well as the more often cited Amsterdam), there's very little fluorescent clothing on cyclists but fewer accidents. That's probably because of their strict liability that the less vulnerable road user is accountable if there is an accident so drivers take more care. If a law was going to be passed, that's the one I'd prefer.


I believe that statistically more pedestrians are hit on roads by drivers than cyclists are but there's no campaign to make them wear hi-viz and helmets... although hmmmm, now I think on it... ;-)

While high viz is good for other road users to spot the cyclist, research has been done that wearing high viz/helmet, etc gives the rider a feeling of invulnerability and they do not ride as carefully/defensively as they should.


I will try and find the research but it was some years ago that I was looking into it when my daughter first started cycling on roads.

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I believe that statistically more pedestrians are

> hit on roads by drivers than cyclists are but

> there's no campaign to make them wear hi-viz and

> helmets... although hmmmm, now I think on it...

> ;-)


Is that in absolute numbers or as a percentage. I suspect the former.

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah ha - a driver who likes the lights that flash.


Yes, I smiled with intrigue when I read your comment Loz, because, until recently, the legal position was that the bike had to be equipped with back and front "static" lights at night. The implication was that it was illegal to ride with intermittent lighting. I like flashing lights as I feel they attract more attention. However, surveys at the time showed that drivers thought they were not as effective as static lights from a distance. I always got around this uncertainty in the law by using one static light at both back and front coupled with additional (flashing) lighting at the rear.


What makes Loz's observation doubly interesting is the fact that legislation has relatively recently been amended to allow cyclists to use intermittent lighting at the rear, so - clearly - there must have been other like-minded souls with Loz's view.


Fascinating stuff this!

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While high viz is good for other road users to

> spot the cyclist, research has been done that

> wearing high viz/helmet, etc gives the rider a

> feeling of invulnerability and they do not ride as

> carefully/defensively as they should.


I, too, recall reading something along those lines, except that the research I read was specific to helmets only (though that doesn't mean to say that there wasn't separate research on high-viz clothing). If I recall correctly, the results suggested that cyclists who wore a helmet had more chance of being hit. This was because drivers tended to give helmet wearers less room than helmetless riders. I think the implication there was that drivers felt that the helmetless cyclists appeared more vulnerable than the helmet-wearing ones.

The eyes/brain tends to notice changes, be they movement or flashing, and 'turn off' anything that doesn't change. It's why if you shine a torch in your eye you often suddenly see the veins in your eye - they light causes them to 'move' as far as the retina is concerned.


A static light on a bike travelling in the same direction as you tends to leave your concentration. That's why ambulances, fire engines, etc. have flashing lights - to get your attention.


And in the rain and in the dark, there are lights and reflections all over the place in the urban areas. Even if you don't wear your hi-viz jacket at any other time, wear it on rainy nights.

  • 4 weeks later...
Anyone who has visited Borough High Street recently will know that you cannot go south for a part from London Bridge, due to road works. In spite of signs telling cyclists to dismount they still ignore them and tear down the part of the road sectioned off, riding between cones and pedestrians. I'm developing a complete lack of respect for them. They don't seem to respect anything.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone who has visited Borough High Street

> recently will know that you cannot go south for a

> part from London Bridge, due to road works. In

> spite of signs telling cyclists to dismount they

> still ignore them and tear down the part of the

> road sectioned off, riding between cones and

> pedestrians. I'm developing a complete lack of

> respect for them. They don't seem to respect

> anything.


What do you think of the Leicestershire Constabulary's approach to such a problem?


Observing cyclists flout the law is not only irritating to drivers, but to law-abiding cyclists too; mainly because those who automatically abide by the law tend to get tarred with the same brush as those who disregard it.

managed to have my bicycle pinched-ggrr- but will borrow my sons for a while-can anyone recommned a particular ladies saddle? I think its fair to say I have a fair amount of matural padding anyway, butI need to cycle 45 miles one day in Septemebr, and need to be able to function the next day. My previous saddle was a huge squashy gel one, but I had been told that was doing me no favours.
My advice, WOD, would be to visit Decathlon. A short trek, I know - but they have a MASSIVE bike section, with plenty of choice and advice. Prices are reasonable too. Otherwise, try BCBikes (I've never used them myself, but they come highly recommended on here).

thanks Laddymuck- but the main issue is the ladies saddle- i have a fair amount of natural padding anyway- but I have always found it difficult to sit on a saddle for more than 45 mins. More of a ladies question really.gel? vents/ brands? any recommendations? Decathlon do not have experienced women cyclists on hand-

Thanks

Looking back, I think my post might have appeared a little dismissive WOD: twasn't meant to (apologies if so). I recommended a visit to Decathlon (a) because I know squat about saddles and (b) because I have always found them extremely knowledgeable and helpful (though - to be fair - I have never sought to purchase a saddle there). However, I should have mentioned a couple of other things:


(a) you can have the best saddle in the world, but, if the bike is not a good fit for you (and I notice you are thinking of borrowing your son's) then you are, in all likelihood, going to suffer some discomfort. Little things like adjusting the handlebars and ensuring the saddle is set at the correct height make an enormous difference to your riding experience.


(b) ditto unsuitable clothing. I remember wearing jeans whilst cycling in Asturias. I didn't quite do 45 miles in one day, but, suffice to say that those thick seams caused many an...ahem...iritation. Sore fanny for days :-$.


Good luck. And sorry about your bike being stolen too.

I believe if you buy it from Evans, you can try it out for 28 days to see if you like it. And get some good miles in on it before your 45 mile excursion - and it might be worth trying padded shorts. They don't work for me personally - I find they make me go a little numb at the front - but I have friends who swear my them.


Squashy saddles aren't a good thing. I've got a second-hand Selle Italia SLK on mine which looks pretty flat but I've done 40 miles on it without aching. The most important thing is getting one that's the right width for your seatbones. If it's too wide/narrow, then you won't get the right support.

i think your right = partner is a cycle coach so size is sorted, but men dont really get women's anatomy- its all well and good him saying get it from wiggle but I think I have to try some out first- I always find cycle shops staffed by either ignorant but well meaning or techy type men and feel embarrassed to ask about womens saddles- I see a Selle Italia is quite pricey- but what price comfort- any other recommendations?

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe if you buy it from Evans, you can try it

> out for 28 days to see if you like it.


Didn't know that Applespider. Useful to know though. But what happens to all those returned saddles?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...