- This topic has 168 replies, 60 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by molgrips.
-
£220 fine for no lights
-
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years ago
Do cyclists commonly run into other cyclists they don’t see because of low sun?
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWhat a sodding stupid question.
Can you PLEASE just state your point, and not be winding me up with all these questions. It would be a lot nicer and we’d all have a better thread.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoNo it’s not at all, because you’re suggesting this issue of moving into a space you can’t see is clear isn’t limited to motor vehicles.
My point, which I thought was fairly obvious, is that lots of drivers do drive into spaces they can’t see are clear, are then surprised when they hit something in that space and they (and society) consider their inability to see whether the space they drive into is clear to be an excuse. I consider that to be rather wrong, and a symptom of car hegemony.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agothey (and society) consider their inability to see whether the space they drive into is clear to be an excuse
I don’t see any evidence of this, and it is not my position as I’ve made clear twice now.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoReally? Do I need to dredge up the links to court cases where drivers used that as their defence and were consequently found not guilty?
You have suggested a few times that you don’t think it unreasonable for a driver not to see a cyclist in front of them for various reasons. Have I missed the bit where you then suggested that the driver stopped because they couldn’t see what was in front of them?
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoYou have suggested a few times that you don’t think it unreasonable for a driver not to see a cyclist in front of them for various reasons
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect it to happen. That doesn’t mean that the driver isn’t at fault.
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoReally? Do I need to dredge up the links to court cases where drivers used that as their defence and were consequently found not guilty?
No need, I’ve already done it.
JunkyardFree MemberPosted 8 years agoBut what you don’t know is whether the same collision would have occurred with lights*.
|If we set the bar that high then no one knows
That said , having read your link and the work you have done, I am happy to bow to your expertise[ not sarcasm].
Sobering and frighteningaracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI think you need to make your mind up rather than holding two logically incompatible viewpoints.
deadkennyFree MemberPosted 8 years agondthornton – Member
You did see them then because you counted them; so they weren’t rendered invisible…..and from your tone am I safe in assuming you managed not to run over any of them?I stated that one of them was in the full dark in the countryside and only just saw them. To fill you in though, I seriously nearly ran him over. Came on to him round the corner so lights weren’t on him directly and just caught a reflection of the pedal reflectors. I hit the breaks and as there were cars a little behind I slowed right down and stuck my hazards on. This guy was seriously risking his life especially given the speed people drive around these back roads.
I mean seriously, I’m not being Mr Anti-Cyclist Driver here. I’m a cyclist too, and do hit the road at times and I’m not insane enough to not use lights on unlit back roads. Even forgetting about making themselves seen, how the hell do you see where you’re going? Eat carrots? ! 🙄
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI think you need to make your mind up rather than holding two logically incompatible viewpoints.
I don’t think they’re logically incompatible. To put it another way – drivers will make mistakes.
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoIf we set the bar that high then no one knows
Mm, which is precisely the problem, because that’s the bar that’s needed in order to be confident in any conclusions. We have a lot of “safety” interventions where the effects are unknown, or—worse—assumed to be beneficial because of either “common sense” or superficial assessment of data. But they catch on because people (quite understandably) like to clutch at whatever straws are available, and many people’s faith in “common sense” is strong: most don’t like to have their “common sense” challenged. And then there’s things like behavioural influences, the morality of first vs third party casualties, population net effects and so on. Sadly, because it’s so complex, the simplistic “bright things make you safe” message is something that people can easily grab hold of: it’s common sense, after all, which is shorthand for “something I can refuse to think about without feeling guilty”.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoDriving into a space you can’t see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn’t be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?
martymacFull MemberPosted 8 years agoaracer – Member
Do cyclists commonly run into other cyclists they don’t see because of low sun?once had a guy in the shop who had cycled into the back of a whole family who were on their bikes.
in broad daylight.
on a dual carraigeway.
not low sun either, it was around 2pm
apparently he had ‘just looked down at the cranks for a second’squirrelkingFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI managed to cycle into the back of a Volkswagen (yes it was uncomfortable) once. Again, looked at the road (actually my helmet peak obscured my view) and next thing I knew there was a flash of silver and I was spreading myself across the boot. In broad daylight.
On flashing lights, I was approaching a cyclist with one tonight and had a very hard time judging his distance (and subsequently his speed) and position in the road relative to me. Whilst they are very good for getting attention I’m not sure I like the way they confuse things. Of course had he been using a steady state light as well and the flasher wasn’t so bright that it was actually blinding (probably brighter than a brake or fog light) it would have been far easier to deal with.
helsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoAnother fun one this morning. The bypass was broken so I drove past Dreghorn Barracks. Guy in full camouflage kit on bike with no lights flashes across in front of me (crossing the road from pavement to the entrance).
Again, he is lucky I am a careful driver and was only doing 30 ! I know these guys get in much bigger trouble than any of us computer mechanics for being late, but that was a brave move.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoDriving into a space you can’t see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn’t be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?
I think you are confused. The term ‘mistake’ does not remove culpability.
Flashing lights.. ooh don’t get me started. Slow flashing lights are a damn nuisance to everyone – drivers, cyclists and everyone.
For an extreme example cycle up from Hyde Park Corner into Hyde Park at rush hour. The street lighting is much less and there are dozens of cyclists coming towards you and going with you, almost all of whom have very bright flashing lights front and rear. You cannot see a bloody thing, just a view of loads of flashing lights.
Lezyne need to pull their fingers out. They make these lovely lights that are in loads of bike shops, and then they only give them this slow blink mode which is a disaster for visibility. I have Cateye and Bontrager lights which have a flicker mode, this is far better and uses no more power.
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoThe question we are debating is ‘are lights worth using?’
I don’t think anyone has said they’re not worth using so you may be arguing that on your own
not ‘what’s the greatest risk to cyclists?’
but it really really should be.
This guy was seriously risking his life especially given the speed people drive around these back roads.
so you’re saying people drive dangerously on those roads but it’s the cyclist that should be protecting himself?
see victim blamingThere’s lots of shit drivers out there not looking where they are going so it’s probably a good idea to use lights (it’s also a legal requirement 🙂 ) but blaming the victim when some ****tard not watching where he is going ploughs into the back of them is not on, accusing someone without lights of darwinism or suicidal tendencies is not on. As has already been mentioned there’s other unlit things that are occasionally on the road so tunnel vision only looking out for lights ahead is a stupid way to drive.
Bez – Member
Et voilà: http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-the-wedge/your articles may have helped shape my views 😉
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoOh and we also get shit about our choice of light,
flashing “nooooo it’s too disorientating so I hit you”,
powerful “aaaaah my eyes, didn’t want to slow down so drove into you while dazzled”,
steady low power “not powerful enough and pointing in slightly the wrong direction so I had to run you over, sorry about that*”I think you are confused. The term ‘mistake’ does not remove culpability.
oxford english definition or colloquial? I’m pretty sure a lot of people use it to absolve themselves of blame
*just my little joke, no one apologises
kelvinFull MemberPosted 8 years agoThe guy in the original story was clearly an idiot, and deserves the fine.
Having said that, it’s interesting going through this thread replacing “cyclist” with “pedestrian“… when driving you need to be looking out for non-lit dressed in black people, and be in control of your car, and, dare I say it, be slower and more careful on these darker evenings.
hammyukFree MemberPosted 8 years agoaracer – Member
So you’re suggesting that drivers who run down cyclists because they couldn’t see them when driving into a low sun are not at all at fault? Wow. Is it the cyclists who are at fault then?well the stupid young b**ch who killed a friend of mine by pulling from a side road even though she COULD NOT see because of low sun walked away from court without so much as a fine 👿
She actually admitted in court that she could not see due to the setting sun but she pulled out anyway because “she assumed it was clear”.
The Judge ruled that it was an accident and she could not reasonably has seen him due to the time of year, the suns position, etc.
Bearing in mind he had a helmet cam on and the footage showed her with her windows open, dark glasses on and not covering her face. She also didn’t wait any length of time at the junction either. The footage showed her pulling up to the STOP line, quickly looking and then pulling out – so her story of not being able to see was a total crock.
She still walked though.So yes aracer – it is reasonable to “assume” that a driver killing someone because they couldn’t see is not at fault….
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI think you are confused. The term ‘mistake’ does not remove culpability.[/quote]
I think it’s you who is confused – in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases. Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?
piedidiformaggioFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWell, it all got a bit silly didn’t it.
Clearly it’s a good idea to have lights fitted and it good working order and turned on at night when cycling
The law is clear on this
If you choose not to fit / use lights and ride at night on public roads/places, then you are somewhat daft in my opinion.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI think it’s you who is confused – in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases
What?
Ignorance has never been a defence.
Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?
Me, I made a mistake in thinking a 40 was a 30.
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoYou got prosecuted for doing 10mph under the speed limit? ISTR it’s happened, but it’s not exactly common 😉
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoA telling story about low sun, cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.
Everyone acquitted coz, you know, assuming the road is clear isn’t careless/dangerous…
Awesome!(I was looking for “I made a mistake” drivers being acquitted but got derailed when I read that)
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoIgnorance has never been a defence.
I assumed it was more a reference to mens rea than to ignorance. But even then AFAICT there’s no real difference between mistakes and negligence (other than, one might speculate, the likelihood of a jury sympathising with the defendant), which makes half the thread a moot discussion of semantics: see the comment regarding R v Lawrence at the bottom of the first page of this document.
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoA telling story about low sun, cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.
Yeah, done that one too, in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode 😐
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoYeah, done that one too, in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode
Forum even swear filters URLs 😯
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoAssuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI hadn’t realised it did that, though it shouldn’t really be that surprising.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoAssuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.
Yep.
As Bez said there’s no real difference. Neglicence can lead to mistakes, but mistakes can be made for other reasons. That’s why we are prosecuted for driving without DUE care and attention, not driving whilst not taking every possible scenario into account at all times.
But this is rather pointless. You’ve said that blame cannot automatically be apportioned to the non-light using cyclist, I’ve agreed.
I however believe that certain things do help others to make fewer mistakes. Lights at night is a pretty straightforward one, which is why it’s mandatory for all vehicles. The article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWhat’s new?
Though there is a fundamental point here – it appears that hitting somebody whilst driving into a space you can’t see is a mistake. Because nobody ever considers the negligence involved in driving into a space you can’t see – there is a very conscious decision being made by drivers to do that, a decision which is fundamentally reckless about the safety of other road users.
There is a fundamental difference though. Because mistakes without negligence (or incompetence, inexperience or deliberate intent) won’t be prosecuted (mistakes with negligence don’t get prosecuted often enough when the negligence isn’t acknowledged). Bez’s legal link up there doesn’t contradict that.
TurnerGuyFree MemberPosted 8 years agoIs not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not ?
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoIndeed. And negligence is defined as not doing the things that one SHOULD be doing. Which is what the lawyers argue over.
Drivers are expected to be only so good, it is recognised that not everyone should be expected to be perfect. You seem to have a problem with where the line is drawn.
Which is fair enough, and I think that could’ve been explained better in a single post rather than a long drawn out bickerthon.
aracerFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI have a problem with some forms of negligence not even being acknowledged. Fair point on the bickerthon though, to everybody’s relief I’ll stop here.
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoThe article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.
Yes and if everyone else said “haha, silly sod broke the rules so pay up” I’d have agreed (as I do with speeding ticket threads) but we got a load of darwinism comments which some took exception to.
<edit> not wanting to reignite the bickerthon but I’ve been away from the thread for a while 🙂
BezFull MemberPosted 8 years agoIs not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not?
Heh. I must get round to finishing the next column 🙂
The topic ‘£220 fine for no lights’ is closed to new replies.
