Forum menu
No ben just the unpredictable things capable of movement - strange question [ though I have not read the thread]
So you memorise the position of every obstacle on the path?
I find it all very odd - I cycle on canal paths quite a bit, where there's little or no lighting. I have the front light set up to illuminate the ground 30ft or so in front of me, I have no problem at all with seeing and avoiding pedestrians on the paths, even when they have no lights or reflective clothing on. The ones who are a problem are the other cyclists with really bright or flashing lights.
then I need a reasonably bright light to spot them.
Which is perfectly sensible.
Welcome to the top of the travel speed pecking order
Of course pedestrians think you're a ****, just like you think the 4x4 driver's a **** when you reach the road
"bloody pedestrians; all they ever do is bimble along in their black clothes, geting in the way - and then the bastards have the cheek to get pissed off about my lights and how fast I ride past them. They'll be properly sorry the day I hit one - all because they weren't wearing a helmet and hi-viz. dozy ****ers - and they all leave dogshit lying around - and their dogs bite off kids faces - and don't get me started on the barking.
I need my lights to go as fast as I want to in the public park; if they don't like it they can **** off - they ought to be on the [s]bike path[/s] grass anyway instead of the [s]road[/s] path"
Oncoming bright flashing light on a dark path is annoying and possibly dangerous to others using the path.
When faced with this my involuntary reaction is to freeze on the spot or try and cover my eyes as I'm effectively blinded and disorientated by the oncoming slow strobe.
There are ways to tell people this, and sounds like your pedestrian may have gotten that part a little wrong. Be careful that you aren't simply miffed at their ('busybody') invasion into your world simply on account of feeling the backlash of you invading theirs. "Well I'm miffed that you're miffed!"
As for the lone suggestion that you should have sex with her. Er...weird?
scaredypants: by the same snarky token, "what is it with drivers using those bright headlights so they can whizz about the roads at ridiculous speeds exceeding 30mph eh? They should have a couple of old EverReady box lights, and if those aren't bright enough to see unlit ninja cyclists then they need to drive slower". 😀
Alternatively... we could all be sensible.
I don't hoon about on shared use paths, especially on unlit ones at night. But I'm still a little faster than someone walking a dog! And I feel I need a decent (solid) light to see by for my safety and the safety of other users. I'm aware of the possibility of dazzling folk and do what I can to avoid it by keeping the light pointed well down, switching to low power mode, and sometimes shading it with my hand.
As for the lone suggestion that you should have sex with her. Er...weird?
Perhaps that person is a Bonobo?
So you memorise the position of every obstacle on the path?
How does this relate to your question or my point?
Its pretty obvious that a moving unlit dog is more dangerous to me than a stationary inanimate object.
How does this relate to your question or my point?
Its pretty obvious that a moving unlit dog is more dangerous to me than a stationary inanimate object.
Is a black dog easier or harder to see than a black litter bin?
Both will hurt if you hit them, so the first stage is to see them. then you can take appropriate action - which, yes, will be different for the dog. But not seeing a dog and hitting it hurts just as much as not seeing a litter bin and hitting it.
Therefore, only requiring moving objects to illuminate themselves is nonsensical.
If i dont see a bin because its not in my path it wont run out in front of me and take me down.
I dont see how we can argue they both pose an equal risk to me when one cannot move and one can.
You may as well argue a dead dog is as much risk to me as an alive dog.
You may as well argue a dead dog is as much risk to me as an alive dog.
You're confusing the risk of not seeing it with the risk of not taking appropriate avoiding action. The risk of not seeing it is the same, the risk of not responding correctly is different. But first stage with any obstacle is you have to see the obstacle.
Is a black dog easier or harder to see than a black litter bin?
Hey here's a really good strategy I encountered yesterday for walking black dogs in the dark: walk your lab off the lead whilst wearing full camo gear along a leafy track in the dark, with your torch off and without any other lighting (ok, fine, whatever you want). Then, when you see an approaching cyclist - me - instead of doing something reasonable like saying "Hello!", jump into the middle of the track and turn your massive 3 XPG torch on full, pointed directly in his face, so he can't see a ****ing thing. Nice one. Cock. I hope his stupid dog craps on his bed.
WRT the OP, I do run flashing lights, but only in combination with a steady light at night. The flash alerts dopey idiots to the fact that I'm there, the steady light allows them to focus their limited mental resources on my presence for long enough to (hopefully) avoid colliding with me. I don't mind flashing lights myself, but lots of people do and it's best not to antagonise anyone when you're on a bike because some people are primed to kick off at the slightest provocation. Generally I try not to give them chance. Lights are one of the many things that push people's buttons, apparently...
I really do not have to see immovable inanimate objects not in my path [ they pose no risk to me at all] i only need to see the movable objects that may come into my pathBut first stage with any obstacle is you have to see the obstacle.
I really do not have to see immovable inanimate objects not in my path i only need to see the movable objects that may come into my path
So you travel at such a speed that you can see them with the lighting you have.
Just like riding on the roads, it's all about give and take, and being reasonable to other users - and off road, it's cyclists who are the fast, powerful, scary vehicles and it's responsible of us to remember that.
Why on earth would you stop cycling to listen to someone mouth off at you?
That's partly the thing. I was riding (not very quickly) and she just hurled it at me as I went by. Hence the 'passive aggressive' comment I first made.
So you travel at such a speed that you can see them with the lighting you have.
i.e. 2mph in case they dart in front of you from a previously unseeable location.
But OP. Why do you think she did it? Of course, she may just be an a*** but have you considered that your light may in fact be the problem?
Have I considered that my light may be a problem? Yes, which is why I asked if she was correct. And in light of comments in here, I will try to be more conscious of the light in the future. But I was really getting at two things: the light AND her demeanour. If I have a problem with what someone is doing, I try to make an opportunity to address it constructively. I DON'T mouth off to them when they are simply going about their business.
Person irritated by something you are doing that is irritating, tells you that they are irritated by it.
Your response is accusations of "Stalinism".
What's wrong with this picture? 🙄
So you travel at such a speed that you can see them with the lighting you have
there is no speed one can travel at where one can see the objects one cannot see and the fact remains only the movable ones pose a danger to me.
Indeed but if one cannot see them because they are not illuminated one cannot be reasonable to them. the reasonable bit here is to illuminate oneself/dog.it's all about give and take, and being reasonable to other users
The alternative is to do 2 mph everywhere whist anticipating the highly unlikely such as people jumping out from behind trees as you pass.
the reasonable bit here is to illuminate oneself/dog.
The reasonable bit is, if I'm happily strolling along a path at night where I can see perfectly well because my eyes have dark adapted, a cyclist doesn't cycle into me.
The onus is on the cyclist to not cycle into me, not on me to light myself up for his convenience.
The reasonable bit is, if I'm happily strolling along a path at night where I can see perfectly well because my eyes have dark adapted, a cyclist doesn't cycle into me.
That same argument could be applied to cycling on the road at night though Ben.
Why should I light myself up just so that drivers don't drive into me - they should go slower.
The reality is that we all need to make reasonable compromises for our safety and the safety of others.
What does it say in the Highway Code?
I'll help you out. Rule 3
That same argument could be applied to cycling on the road at night though Ben.
Nope, because cycling on the road is governed by the Road Traffic Act, which specifies lighting that should be used on bicycles. Doesn't apply to paths, pavements etc.
The simple answer is to just be reasonable. Be responsible for your own riding and your own ability to not run into anything, don't blame someone else for not being illuminated.
[img] 
[/img]
They appear to be walking on a road. The Highway Code refers to pedestrians on a road. That's completely different to off-road paths.
wht the highway code applies to the highway
You are right they will almost definitely say when in the dark make sure you have no way of making yourself seen as it is everyone elses responsibility to avoid you and you dont need to do a thing to ensure your own safety its just down to them - interestingly also true on the road yet they advise some PPE.
So where does it say that off road you need to be able to see where you are going. Sorry,the same principle applies. Just be reasonable. If you are going to walk on an unlit cyclepath, try to make sure they you do not actively camouflage yourself.
The parallel with attitudes of some drivers is painfully apparent on here sometimes
Just be reasonable. If you bare going to walk on an unlit cyclepath, try to make sure they you do not actively camouflage yourself.
We're not talking about actively camouflaging yourself, we're talking about being able to go for a walk in normal clothes without having to wear a dorky reflective belt in case a cyclist can't look where they're going.
..... On an unlit cyclepath where there are likely to be cyclists. Just carry a torch or whatever. Take some responsibility for your own safety.
Well, that's just it - that prety much is how drivers perceive cyclists' comments/complaints - hence you get "I missed you didn't I?". Not so much about brightness of lights, since some of us can outdo theirs on grounds of blindyness, but red light running, slowness, "invisibility" are all things some drivers like to accuse cyclists of, while ignoring our complaints that they're too fast, close and inconsiderate.scaredypants: by the same snarky token, "what is it with drivers using those bright headlights so they can whizz about the roads at ridiculous speeds exceeding 30mph eh? They should have a couple of old EverReady box lights, and if those aren't bright enough to see unlit ninja cyclists then they need to drive slower"
FWIW, Graham - and clearly you were being facetious but my view is that many car lights [u]are[/u] now dangerously bright - manufacturers even started to use "our lights don't become less bright when dipped" as a selling point. Great, until you hit a bump or a short ramp and dazzle all oncomong traffic with all that "down-focussed" light
I'm bang in favour of reducing 30mph limits to 20 because in urban areas hazards can't adequately be observed in the interval offered by higher speeds, IMO (and cos 20 is less killy when even that speed isn't slow enough to avoid hitting someone).
The simple answer is to just be reasonable.
Exactly - and that applies to ALL users.
don't blame someone else for not being illuminated.
Sorry to keep harking on this example but it has happened to me a couple of times:
A black extendable lead stretched across an unlit cycle path is near invisible.
If they make no effort to illuminate it or their dog hidden in the undergrowth then yes, I do blame them.
(And I also make sure I use a bright light, cover my brakes, and slow down as I pass folk).
FWIW, Graham - and clearly you were being facetious but my view is that many car lights are now dangerously bright
Yep I agree. I needed to buy a headlight bulb the other day and there were loads of "premium" brands saying they were 125% Brighter, 150% Brighter, Super Bright etc
But that's definitely an issue with bike lights too - most of which don't have road-friendly beam shaping or any proper dipped mode.
yeh - that's why the people in the park hate you*But that's definitely an issue with bike lights too - most of which don't have road-friendly beam shaping or any proper dipped mode.
*yes, YOU !**
** actually not you - I think it was you who put me onto those philips things with proper beam
High-viz and lights required for walking the dog? I'm oot.
There are some bioluminescent sea creatures, maybe we can cross a deep sea octopoid with a black lab and genetically engineer a glow in the dark purple trail hound.
love the responces from those who dont ride a bike in the dark but become instant experts on beam patterns, definition of the highway, Highway act is any place the public has free access to, the weirdos who walk or run round on a an unlit sustrans provided path with no reflective clothing or a torch with the pooch on a long extending lead, or worse running free and not under control.
then voice their concerns on a BIKE FORUM.
Gary_M - Member
I normally run one front light flashing, and one fixed beam. The pedestrians, joggers and dog walkers seem to have to dress like ninjas.
Are you suggesting all these people should be wearing high viz clothing? If you really can't see people wearing normal clothes with a normal light on you're a hazard on the road.
bencooper - Member
Just be reasonable. If you bare going to walk on an unlit cyclepath, try to make sure they you do not actively camouflage yourself.
We're not talking about actively camouflaging yourself, we're talking about being able to go for a walk in normal clothes without having to wear a dorky reflective belt in case a cyclist can't look where they're going.
If you're riding on a cycle path in the dark, with no other light source other than what's on the front of the bike, and the light has a reasonably focused beam with enough outer spread to illuminate the edges of the path, centre spot angled to show the path far enough in front to be safe at ten mph, then you may well be able to pick up peds wearing light coloured clothing, but a great many people don't, and wear matt black with no reflective patches, which makes them very difficult to pick out until you're almost on top of them, and dogs running around randomly are a real hazard.
I've ridden back along a riverside path across a playing field with a carved stone seat set off to one side, with a fairly high-powered light on the front, around 800lmn, with a tight centre-spot. As I came up to the seat, I could hear voices, but not actually see anyone, and suddenly a small terrier shot in front of me, straight under my front wheel! It yelped loudly, I'd hit the brake, but still ran over it, absolutely nothing I could do.
Unlike @bencooper, I'm perfectly capable of not hitting street furniture that's set off to one side of the path, or a stationary object that's on the path, but randomly moving objects, dressed in clothing that's the same colour as the background, and who are actually [i]on[/i] the sodding path are a whole other issue.
I do agree that super-bright flashing lights are very distracting in full darkness, I tend to favour a small flashing light for urban riding, with another steady light for unlit lanes or paths, the little TrustFire R6-A3 lights I've had for some years, that put out around 230lmn, mounted on Twofish lockblocks are a good compromise between dazzling others and being able to see where the hell you're going.