To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July

[numbers]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Which bit of me saying I drive at night lead you

> to think "anti car"??

As I said previously, it was pretty much all your comments on this thread that seemed divisive. them and us. drivers. cyclists. That is how it comes across to me. So cycling at night without lights, not teaching a child basic road safety which most cyclists will agree with, that's ok is it?

[StraferJack]

Them and us?

"I drive at night"

So am I them or am I us? Who is us and who is them?

What is with your comments about driving to airports? I don't understand your thinking

I think I said I would be using lights if if was cycling. So the answer you your "is that ok" question would be that

But not do I think cycling in london at night is " doing everything in your power to get the child killed"

I don't know the circumstance. But let's say I had to cycle home with my daughter at 11 at night and had no lights ( battery? Personal rule? Vandalism? I dunno)

In any case I would be confident about street lights and cars headlights providing sufficient visibility. I certainly wouldn't accept I would be trying to get my child killed

[Pugwash]

Parts of Goodrich Road are very poorly lit and if the mother and child were wearing dark clothing and had dark coloured bikes, other road users including pedestrians could easily miss them. Having a cyclist husband I am very conscious of other cyclists and give them a wide berth if I have to overtake them. The other night, reversing into my drive, I had to brake suddenly as a cyclist wearing dark clothing and no lights decided to a u turn in Barry Road and tried to pass me on the kerb side just as I was turning the car. Fortunately, I saw him out of the corner of my eye and was going so slowly I could stop immediently.

[StraferJack]

Not that fortunate. You were just observing rules of the road And paying attention. Good for you.

[numbers]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Them and us?

>

> "I drive at night"

>

> So am I them or am I us? Who is us and who is

> them?

>

> What is with your comments about driving to

> airports? I don't understand your thinking

>

> I think I said I would be using lights if if was

> cycling. So the answer you your "is that ok"

> question would be that

>

> But not do I think cycling in london at night is "

> doing everything in your power to get the child

> killed"

>

> I don't know the circumstance. But let's say I

> had to cycle home with my daughter at 11 at night

> and had no lights ( battery? Personal rule?

> Vandalism? I dunno)

>

> In any case I would be confident about street

> lights and cars headlights providing sufficient

> visibility. I certainly wouldn't accept I would

> be trying to get my child killed

I don't understand your thinking either.

So if we're speculating here (and you are), then what if my car headlights were damaged by vandalism, battery, whatever - would that be OK for me just to drive home without using them? because rules only apply to some road users and not others?

It is not okay to endanger lives by cycling at night without lights, (in THIS case, a child, who has no say) it sets a bad example. It is irresponsible. Wilfully negligent as said above.

[StraferJack]

Well if it was my car I wouldn't drive it because I'm responsible for driving a machine that can kill through sheer heft. That's the difference. Physics. Not some alleged anti car bias

Plus it is illegal to drive without working headlights isn't it?

Then again so is cycling but slightly more ambiguity

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

But basically driving at night, I pay attention, can see and am not worried about endangering life.

[aquarius moon]

SJ,

You may be the perfect example of a perfect driver aware of your surroundings at all times but unfortunately all drivers aren't as perfect as you.

They don't see in the dark and rely on cyclists to be responsible enough to use lights in order to be seen.

[Local tramp]

I like to drive around and throw things(coins,eggs and Rotten fruit) at cyclists because I think they are a complete bunch of morons. They ride around dressed up like they are competing in the Tour de France , imagine if motorists started driving to work all dressed up like Lewis Hamilton. Cyclists are the most selfish and ignorant people around they are like rats scurrying around on the roads without a clue with what's going on around them. They should be banned from public roads. If people want to ride bikes then go and do it in a park or a private track where you not a hazard to the decent people in society who have enough to worry about without some dickhead on a bike swerving all over the road.

[numbers]

If you are intelligent enough to KNOW you are more vulnerable on the road (applies motorcyclists too who in my experience are excellent at displaying awareness of road safety, ensuring visibility), it is nothing more than common sense to not endanger your life any more than necessary by being more visible. Even more so when you have a child with you. Especially at night.

This thread is about "the cycling adult on goodrich road". If someone wants to post a thread about a driver being irresponsible on Goodrich Road, then fair enough. Now this thread is attracting idiotic anti cycling comments because of the 'them and us' attitude espoused earlier. I give up.

ps what AQ said.

[StraferJack]

There was no them and us comments. That's your take numbers

If there are bad drivers however, don't blame their potential victims for not wearing the right clothes

[hpsaucey]

From the Highway Code:

'Rule 60

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24'

Pretty clear. Surely anyone cycling without lights is potentially endangering both themselves and others on the road.

And I should know - I was pulled over for this when a student 20 years ago and given a very justified talking to by the police. Stayed with me...

HP

[numbers]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> There was no them and us comments. That's your

> take numbers

>

> If there are bad drivers however, don't blame

> their potential victims for not wearing the right

> clothes

and if there are bad cyclists.....? cycling WITHOUT LIGHTS, not even got on to clothing (yet).

we are talking about irresponsible cyclist here so no-one is "blaming potential victim of a bad driver". are you being deliberately obtuse?

[LadyDeliah]

There should be a much higher standard expected of drivers for them to be allowed to take a life endangering machine out in public. Driving shouldn't be seen as a right and if anyone cannot show that they are positively not a danger driving their lethal machinery in public, they should not be allowed on the road.

I drive and cycle (no longer own a car and use zipcar when I need to), but I have a moral obligation to be aware of my surroundings at all times when driving and if I hit a cyclist, a kid running out into the road, a drunk adult stepping into the road and maim or kill them, I'd be totally responsible because I'm the one in charge of a machine I know is capable of killing. It would also be likely I was driving too quickly if someone died after a collision with my vehicle. Again, totally my fault. I have control of the accelerator, not them.

Drivers need to learn to share the roads and start taking responsibly for their actions. Roads are not theirs. They belong to all of us and we have a right not to be killed or maimed when using them.

[Townleygreen]

LadyDelilah said

"Drivers need to learn to share the roads and start taking responsibly for their actions. Roads are not theirs. They belong to all of us and we have a right not to be killed or maimed when using them."

Well said! A bit of sanity.

[StraferJack]

Let's leave aside these cyclists for a moment

If you are driving down any side street in dulwich, ( or anywhere) your JOB is to be alert. You don't know if some dog is going to dart out between cars. You are driving at night on a narrow street. It's on you to be aware

Stray dogs. Domestic dogs. Cats. Cyclists. Children.

All of them would be more visible if they wore reflective gear but you can't count on any of that. But it is you driving the machine that will kill something. Putting the onus on everyone else is fine and dandy but you should be careful

The cyclists in question would be well advised and are legally obliged to wear gear. But if you can't see them

Without gear you shouldn't really be driving

[Loz]

Local tramp Wrote:

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

> I like to drive around and throw things(coins,eggs and Rotten fruit) at cyclists because I think they

> are a complete bunch of morons. They ride around dressed up like they are competing in the Tour de

> France , imagine if motorists started driving to work all dressed up like Lewis Hamilton. Cyclists

> are the most selfish and ignorant people around they are like rats scurrying around on the roads

> without a clue with what's going on around them. They should be banned from public roads. If people

> want to ride bikes then go and do it in a park or a private track where you not a hazard to the

> decent people in society who have enough to worry about without some dickhead on a bike swerving all

> over the road.

0/10. I can do better than that. And have.

[numbers]

ladyd I pretty much agree with all that but it works both ways, this thread is about a cyclist who was behaving irresponsibly on the road, it was not setting a good example to the child, it did nothing to help the cause of other cyclists who DO bother to use lights at night etc etc.

cars kill other car users too, of course they are dangerous. but to absolve THIS cyclist of any blame for not being more responsible on the road is just wrong and only goes to serve more of the 'them and us' attitude that is so prevalent. No-one is saying "roads belong to drivers". But darwinism in action is a cyclist taking their child out on the road at night wihtout bothering about lights, no excuse. To say so is not 'anti-cycling' or 'pro-driving'.

[hpsaucey]

numbers Wrote:

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

> ladyd I pretty much agree with all that but it

> works both ways, this thread is about a cyclist

> who was behaving irresponsibly on the road, it was

> not setting a good example to the child, it did

> nothing to help the cause of other cyclists who DO

> bother to use lights at night etc etc.

>

> cars kill other car users too, of course they are

> dangerous. but to absolve THIS cyclist of any

> blame for not being more responsible on the road

> is just wrong and only goes to serve more of the

> 'them and us' attitude that is so prevalent.

> No-one is saying "roads belong to drivers". But

> darwinism in action is a cyclist taking their

> child out on the road at night wihtout bothering

> about lights, no excuse. To say so is not

> 'anti-cycling' or 'pro-driving'.

Well said numbers. THAT'S sanity.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Let's leave aside these cyclists for a moment

OK. If I, as a pedestrian (which I generally am, since I don't have a car at the moment, just a zipcar card) dart out at night between cars and onto the road and someone hits me (be it in a car or on a bike) then it is my fault. I have to take responsibility for my actions that caused me to be injured.

In fact, I did something like this (without actually being hit) just the other day in broad daylight. Had a quick (but poor) look and stepped onto the road, right in front of a bicycle. A combination of his startled yell and my panicked leap backwards meant no harm was done. He gave me a mouthful and I sheepishly apologised. He rode on.

It wasn't his fault. At all.

[LadyDeliah]

Let's take it from a different angle to help you get the point I'm trying to make.

Why do cyclists need to light themselves up like Christmas trees?

What is the reason it's dangerous for kids day or night to cycle on the roads?

Why do I have to cycle defensively every time I commute to work in my bike?

Because motor vehicles are lethally dangerous.

With anything else that is a danger to others, e.g. Dangerous dogs, we expect the person who is responsible for that danger to take the appropriate action to prevent that thing from endangering the public.

It's not an excuse for an owner of a dog that savages someone who visits their home to say well they knew I had a dog and they weren't wearing protective clothing.

[numbers]

no, you are absolutely right, cars ARE lethal.

I definitely don't see any reason why cyclists should ever bother with lights because cars are lethal killing machines. Let us campaign for this unfair law to be over-ruled. Why should cyclists be required to have lights, especially at night? Who thought that one up? Let us teach children that whatever happens on the road, it will always be the lethal car* driver's fault.

This thread is most defintely NOT about cars vs cyclists. Let us deflect attention away from the behaviour of the cyclist mentioned by cedes. Any other road users that disagree with certain rules, just forget about it. Do your own thing with righteous indignation.

*including you, zipcars.

[Cedges]

Couple of quick clarifications:

The adult in question was a man.

I was able to very roughly age the child as I was coming towards them on a long straight. Saying that, she(I think) could have been younger or a bit older but was in the ballpark stated and certainly didn't appear to be old enough to be expected to take responsibility for their own actions or be expected to challenge a parent's lead.

The child was on their own separate bike.

Both bikes could quite feasibly have standard type built in reflectors that a car headlamp would pick up clearer than my bike lights, but even so, the lack of lights is still reckless imho and illegal.

Amend 'everything in their power to kill their child' to 'doing nothing whatsoever to protect their child' if you wish but again, imho, they were actively placing the child in unnecessary harms way.

By no lights or reflective gear, I was stating no lights, not even, any reflective or light gear. Would have been better than nothing, I don't go in for hi-viz trundling round the area on my bike and on a properly lit cycle, in this sort of instance, it probably wouldn't have been necessary but that's a whole different debate.

That stretch of road appeared especially dark to me - not a normal route so I don't know if it is always like that or if there were lamps out but where I happened to see them, it wasn't a well lit street.

My personal opinion is that all road users should take responsibility for taking reasonable precautions for their own safety. A car could be being recklessly driving and hit these bikes, it could well be that even if they were properly lit, they would have been hit. Or, it could be that a careful driver happened to round a corner, not be able to see them approaching, pull out and hit them. Every incident will be different and the responsibility will be different in every instance, certain safety precautions can be taken and incidents still happen anyway. Pure accidents where no party is to blame happen. Therefore, I was not in my post saying that if there was an incident with these cyclists, it would definitely be their fault, but they were certainly increasing the risk to themselves. And breaking the law.

As an aside and re a direction some of this thread has taken, I'm a driver who bought a bike, I took a council provided lesson (they don't do this anymore) as a refresher and learnt that I was cycling for the benefit of the car drivers and as a result I was putting myself at risk. As a result I changed how I was cycling (mainly leaving more space between me and parked cars, turning into side roads much further away from the curb and 'taking the lane' at junctions). On the occasions when I do drive, I treat cyclists totally differently than I did before, basically not getting peed off when they slow me down as I can't pass, giving them more room and not hoping they duck in (long) gaps in parked cars to let me pass, etc. I'd consider that I have a fair amount of common sense and look at most things from both sides and I was shocked that I hadn't really seen this myself. Having done it, its something I'd highly recommend for all cyclists and drivers. I've seen the odd thing on tv where they had lorry drivers and cyclists switch places with similar results of mutual understanding and a change of behaviour. I suspect the same would be true for motorcyclists too. Unlikely to become widespread practice unfortunately and while there will always be idiotic road users of all varieties around, please lets at least try to do what we can to be safe and set an example to the next generations.

Apologies for the awful spelling - its late and my proof reading skills have gone to bed already.

[aquarius moon]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>

> Drivers need to learn to share the roads and start

> taking responsibly for their actions. Roads are

> not theirs. They belong to all of us and we have a

> right not to be killed or maimed when using them.

Agree. I don't drive or cycle so only ever walk or use public transport.

All road users need to respect each other & realise that regardless of how you travel, on foot, bike, car, bus etc a life can be wiped out in seconds just due to carelessness & lack of concentration.

Just look out for each other & work together to make life last a little longer.

[LadyDeliah]

I think there needs to be a huge shift in perceptions of what is acceptable in relation to motorists and I see some movement already.

In the 80's men had more financial, social and political power than women and their view of the world had dominated western society for centuries. Women who wore short skirts, flirted with a guy, accepted drinks or lifts from them were considered to be at fault if they got raped. How could it be the men's fault, the women should know better than to put themselves in danger?

There has been a shift in most people's consciousness away from blaming the victims of rape and an expectation the perpetrator be held to account properly for his actions. We still get told to 'take precautions' etc but the starting point should always be with the perpetrator, not the victim.

Similarly with motoring, the needs of the motorist have come to dominate infrastructure planning for the past century. The supremacy of the needs and rights of the motorist have not been challenged in any significant way until recently. Alongside their dominance is the same victim blaming and lack of accountability that existed when the dominance of men over women was absolute.

When rethinking our relationship with the motor vehicle, the starting point in road safety has to be with that which causes the harm. The motorist has to be held accountable for any lapses in concentration that result in harm to anyone. The standard expected before someone should be entitled to take these lethal machines out into our public spaces should be very high. The same standard we expect of anyone else responsible for the lives of others.

Sensible precautions are not the starting point and their need diminishes the more we address the actual cause of the danger in the first place.

[Loz]

Poor, LD. Very poor.

Trying to equate victim blaming always-innocent rape victims with trying to get cyclists to take some responsibility for poor, stupid and irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists is a really bad and lazy argument.