Time for new tights, mate!

  • By Stily1 on at 11:23am 27 Sep 2012
  • Posted in: General
  • Tagged with:

This morning (27 Sept 2012), ~8:15, eastbound on the CS8 (Millbank, north side of the Thames), bloke on a black or dark grey Scott (?) road bike, black helmet, black jersey, black tights, grey backpack cover, no (operating) lights despite flat, low-level early morning lighting........

......I'm beginning to wonder now why I'm doing this guy a favour........did you think about your road safety?

In any case, mate, your dhb-branded black tights, when stretched over your arse, are *entirely* TRANSPARENT right where it matters, and watching your anus wiggle back and forth with every pedal stroke was NOT a pleasant way to start my day. It's way past time for a fresh pair.

You're welcome.

Replies

Sunrise was 90 minutes before you saw this gentleman. What gives you the right to imply he's behaving recklessly by riding without lights during daylight hours?

Some people pay good money to watch that sort of thing (so I'm told).

Surely, whenever sunrise is, it is hardly a good idea to look like part of the road in "flat, low level early morning light".

I rode back tonight before "lighting up time" - but wouldn't have dreamt of doing so without my lights on - nearly all the cars had theirs on and so it makes sense to be as visible as possible.

  • By Stily1 at 07:25am 08 Nov 2012

Thank you, Helen2000! Just because the rulebook says the sun is up somewhere does not mean it's wise to cycle on the crowded streets of London with your slights switched off. That's just evidence they didn't really think about it. High vis jacket but you can't be arsed to turn on your lights? Can you say 'didn't think that one through, did you, mate?' Low, flat light results in a significant reduction in visibility, and these people think nothing of squandering their safety and good health for the price of some battery time. This is the very definition of penny wise/pound foolish. IMHO

*And* if it's at all wet out there, all those vehicles' glass and mirrors will also be speckeld with light-defracting water that *very* significantly reduces visibility. I'm not interested in when the vehicle code says you must run lights. That is but the lowest common demoninator of common sense.

And people wonder why so many cyclists are squashed in London.

I know the last post was over a month ago, but I'd still like to offer another view...

As far as the post by @stily1 is concerned. It sounds like this guy mentioned could have exercised a more responsible approach with regards to safety through visibility. But the contempt for his attire isn't particularly constructive.

But that aside, the problem I have is that time and time again, despite me always wearing hi-vis (even in summer) and always using lights (other than in bright sunshine) have still had many near misses and on the occasions I've managed to talk to the driver they use the same old excuse "I didn't see you", yet they are still able to spot and complain about cyclists with poor visibility!

Most of my near misses are the result of drivers not using due care and doing their utmost to get past me beause they simply don't want to wait. So the very least we can do, is take away their excuse of not being able to see us and use good visibility.

Finally, I never jump lights, never ride on the path where it is dedicated to pedestrians, and without exception; never ride with poor visibility. But still I am regularly endangered far more times than ever I endanger.

There's plenty of evidence from the police and Transport for London that the most common cause of reported bicycle-motor collisions is the driver "not looking properly". 

What isn't known, however, is how minor crashes aren't reported, and the even greater number of near misses, and what causes all these.

The need for better data on the behaviour of all road users and how to prevent collisions are more worthwhile topics for discussion than a pair of worn-out trousers.

Well said LCC, that's pretty much the point I was making to.

Evidence-based policy making is always welcome, LCC, but as the topic was called 'time for new tights', I think it was more about the exposed anus than accident statistics. Also, I thought you were rather generous to refer to someone exposing their starfish to all and sundry as a gentleman!

Post a reply

Sign in to post a reply.