Cycling UK Forum

Cyril Haearn wrote:May one use the word "moton" here?

You can use whatever words you like. I personally wouldn't choose to use that word though. For one thing, it rhymes with 'photon,' not 'moron,' so doesn't work. However, my main problem is that the only outcome that inventing a motorised-transport-user-specific insult can achieve is to reinforce the harmful myth of 'us and them.' I'd rather use the word 'moron' for anyone who's acted as such, regardless of how they were getting around. I also try, as far as possible, to take my frustrations out on the specific individuals who've caused them rather than mount a passive-aggressive campaign of personal insults against a group that's way too large to make valid generalisations about.

Lights are required when riding on the pavement, but IMO, some people ride on the pavement *because* they don't have lights.

Vorpal wrote:Lights are required when riding on the pavement, but IMO, some people ride on the pavement *because* they don't have lights.

meic wrote:They havent bothered with lights so they stay on the pavement. If my lights were to fail on a ride, I would revert to riding on the pavement instead of the road.

Thought I'd connect these two.

Good points, and TBH I'd not thought about it like that before.

Mick F wrote:I know we've had loads of discussion regarding the legality or otherwise of riding a bike on the pavement.

Saw a chap recently riding along in the dark on the pavement with no lights.
Not talking about shared use here, just a pedestrian pavement/footway alongside a normal road.

What's the legality of this?
Riding on the road between sunset and sunrise requires lights front and rear and also pedal reflectors by law.
What about on the pavement ................. notwithstanding the legality of being there in the first place?

That you were able to see this person in the dark with no lights, where is the need? I presume they were going at a relatively slow speed as they too would not be able to see very far ahead unless there were streetlights, in which case it's not really dark at all.

We have this utterly bizarre situation of cyclists being required to be (well) lit so that others can be warned in advance of their presence to avoid them and yet this actually doesn't serve its purpose in many instances, such that even when legally lit the police will place blame squarely on your shoulders and absolve blame from those who have harmed you Indeed the responsibility to be lit so that others do not strike you or come so close as to induce fear of harm, weakens one of the most important rules in the HC - rule 126, travel at a speed that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. It does not say travel at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see a lit object, yet actually that is what happens pretty much all the time on the roads and by many cyclists too both night and day.

Strangely people 'see' or 'saw' these 'ninja' cyclists without a light (as mentioned) and as far as I know, no unlit cyclist has ever killed a pedestrian, never mind one on a pavement, so is this actually a problem at all?

Firstly no recorded deaths, second, people on the pavement/footway with no lights can be seen, thirdly, due to cyclists having no throw of a light they are unable to travel at much more than jogging speed.
Thus given the weight of harm posed and that posed to yourself should you be unlit - and we know how more wary people on bikes are of being knocked off than a pedestrian is of being knocked over, If we are still saying that cyclists on a pavement require lights, then I think pedestrians and joggers/runners should have lights also. Statistically they pose a greater threat to themselves according to the statistics based on the last 7 years in the latest government review.*

We still keep presuming that people on cycles pose a much greater threat of harm than those on foot and make rules to force cyclists to act/take responsibility as if we are that much greater threat in the same way as motorists. Except that cyclists are held to an even higher standard of behaviour and judgement than motorists, we know this already as multiple cases were cyclists are blamed for their own death/injuries are not for motorists or pedestrians, or when there is suspicion of the cyclist doing wrong, a different set of rules are applied to judge by compared to motorists (Michael Mason and Alliston cases are two prime examples of this amongst many), how is that in any way fair or just?


*pedestrians being attributed at fault by the latest government review for their own deaths 50% more often than a person on a bike when there is an incident between the two groups.

Bez wrote:It matters that you have no lights. Partly in the pragmatic sense that people on foot are less able to see you approaching, but also (as above) because they’re separate offences. If you’re driving on a public highway without a licence, does it also matter if you have four bald tyres, you’re drunk and you’re exceeding the speed limit? Clearly, yes. And there is no legislation prohibiting the use of an unlit pram.

Remove the intoxication aspect and it's nowhere near as clear though. We have instances were 4 deaths were caused by a motorist with 3 bald tyres and excessive speed, the police (Inspector) even covered up the actual speed at the scene by making a haphazard guess which turned out to be substantially less than the inquest estimated it at. The Inspector called it an accident, this is clearly reported in the BBC news article, this type of thing happens frequently when cyclists are the victims but when it's the other way around the facts of a case and the veracity of reporting is somewhat well off the mark by comparison with all attempts to sully the person riding a bike and absolve the so called victim of any blame.
So actually it doesn't really matter if you have bald tyres and are exceeding a safe speed for the conditions or some other dangerous action, plod will invariably ignore that and look to point the blame elsewhere, Michael Mason case again where police essentially blamed him for his own death, ignoring the extreme actions of the motorist that fell massively below that of a safe and considerate driver.

DevonDamo wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:May one use the word "moton" here?

You can use whatever words you like. I personally wouldn't choose to use that word though. For one thing, it rhymes with 'photon,' not 'moron,' so doesn't work. However, my main problem is that the only outcome that inventing a motorised-transport-user-specific insult can achieve is to reinforce the harmful myth of 'us and them.' I'd rather use the word 'moron' for anyone who's acted as such, regardless of how they were getting around. I also try, as far as possible, to take my frustrations out on the specific individuals who've caused them rather than mount a passive-aggressive campaign of personal insults against a group that's way too large to make valid generalisations about.

May? Can?
I may change from moton to motron (spellcheck suggested "motion"), the majority ignore the law on every trip, for example hardly any halt at stop signs or apply the handbrake while waiting at the lights etc, to say nothing of exceeding maximum speed limits

I am a very experienced driver, did have a brush with the bobbies once mind, they asked me why I was driving slowly, proud of that No charges were brought!
What word could be used for the likes of me, drivers who always obey the law?

The utility cyclist wrote:Michael Mason case again where police essentially blamed him for his own death, ignoring the extreme actions of the motorist

Curious to know what you are classifying as “extreme actions” in this case…

Bez wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:Michael Mason case again where police essentially blamed him for his own death, ignoring the extreme actions of the motorist

Curious to know what you are classifying as “extreme actions” in this case…

Smashing into a human with such force that it killed them and flung them a considerable distance, did not even realise they had struck a person at al and carried on as if nothing had happened and was not wanting to stop at the scene because they were so unaware of their actions/what had occurred.
Akin to driving with your eyes shut for a considerable period, totally unaware of surroundings or exterior occurrences even if within a few inches of your face with ZERO acknowledgement of anything actually happening.
I'd say that was pretty extreme don't you? Or is this something you would classify as normal behaviour, even for motorists?

Well, maybe I’ve read too many of these cases. Reactions in these situations are quite often “extreme” compared to everyday behaviour, because—whatever the reasons—something extreme has just happened and the psychological response is somewhat unpredictable. But in the context of culpability for the simple occurrence of a collision, they’re obviously irrrlevant.

Is failing to see someone “extreme”? It’s subjective. But it happens so commonly that it doesn’t fit my definition of the term.

And is driving below the speed limit and in a straight line along a road “extreme”? Again, I don’t think so.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m in no way defending the fact that the driver by her own admission failed to see Mick even after having hit him—the extent of that failure to observe is certainly extraordinary, but I’m not sure I’d describe it as an “extreme action”.

I should point out that I am, of course, “a motorist”

The utility cyclist wrote:

Mick F wrote:I know we've had loads of discussion regarding the legality or otherwise of riding a bike on the pavement.

Saw a chap recently riding along in the dark on the pavement with no lights.
Not talking about shared use here, just a pedestrian pavement/footway alongside a normal road.

What's the legality of this?
Riding on the road between sunset and sunrise requires lights front and rear and also pedal reflectors by law.
What about on the pavement ................. notwithstanding the legality of being there in the first place?

That you were able to see this person in the dark with no lights, where is the need?

I agree totally with your point that the requirement to see ahead includes seeing unlit objects, but there could be some assumption here that everyone sees the same thing in the same way. In practice, some people have far better night vision than others (age plays a large role, unfortunately). Pedestrians are not required to carry lights (in the UK at least), someone with poor night vision might be walking along unlit at a pace which allows them to proceed safely but not to cope with the pace of even a slow cyclist. The "ideal" situation would be that drivers drive at a speed allowing them to see an unlit cyclist (or horse, as horse riders aren't even legally required to have lights, or wild animal or whatever) and so the cyclist whose lights have unfortunately failed or been forgotten would be safer on the road. In practice, that's not often the way it feels and so the cyclist uses the pavement. However, ride around any city at night and you'll see plenty of unlit cyclists on the carriageway and getting safely home.

Bez wrote: ... I’m not sure I’d describe it as an “extreme action”. ....

On the contrary, it seems to me that it's now the norm.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:

Mick F wrote:I know we've had loads of discussion regarding the legality or otherwise of riding a bike on the pavement.

Saw a chap recently riding along in the dark on the pavement with no lights.
Not talking about shared use here, just a pedestrian pavement/footway alongside a normal road.

What's the legality of this?
Riding on the road between sunset and sunrise requires lights front and rear and also pedal reflectors by law.
What about on the pavement ................. notwithstanding the legality of being there in the first place?

That you were able to see this person in the dark with no lights, where is the need?

I agree totally with your point that the requirement to see ahead includes seeing unlit objects, but there could be some assumption here that everyone sees the same thing in the same way. In practice, some people have far better night vision than others (age plays a large role, unfortunately). Pedestrians are not required to carry lights (in the UK at least), someone with poor night vision might be walking along unlit at a pace which allows them to proceed safely but not to cope with the pace of even a slow cyclist. The "ideal" situation would be that drivers drive at a speed allowing them to see an unlit cyclist (or horse, as horse riders aren't even legally required to have lights, or wild animal or whatever) and so the cyclist whose lights have unfortunately failed or been forgotten would be safer on the road. In practice, that's not often the way it feels and so the cyclist uses the pavement. However, ride around any city at night and you'll see plenty of unlit cyclists on the carriageway and getting safely home.

Of course people are different in their physical and mental capabilities, yet what we know is that of this random jumble of people at all different stages in their lives produces a significant higher rate of 'at fault' deaths by people on foot when a person on a bike is the other party.
That already includes all of the people you describe, one group is already being significantly more careful than another despite the level of harm being similar in the scenario on a pavement.
Despite evidence from government only one group is pursued, vilified, attacked without provocation, demanded to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than any other group both in being more aware of others and to protect oneself.
Where is the even handedness in that?

An example, two 75 year olds, one on foot, one on bike with no light, both similar eyesight levels, one is travelling at 5mph, one travelling at 3mph, there is a collision, the 75 year old on a bike sees the 75yr old pedestrian first, they steer away from the person on foot but they in turn step in the direction of where they have steered, the person on the bike falls off dies through a head injury (not wearing a helmet or hi-vis and as mentioned no light).
What is the outcome/headlines/police report as to blame? Reverse that outcome, the pedestrian dies from head injury, obviously no helmet, no hi-vis, no light?

We already know how this ends, we have seen reports in recent times were a cyclist was blamed for their own death and would have been charged by police when there was a collision with a pedestrian (who was not seriously hurt), we already know that when a pedestrian walks/runs back into the path of a person on a bike who has braked, given audible warnings and is steering away from them and the pedestrian dies, how that ends.

So despite similar/same outcome for both parties, despite one group clearly being more careful than the other there is no balance in responsibility, none and yet when the disparity is massively worse for people on bikes (when there's a collision involving a motorist) that application of responsibility is flipped on its head.
As I said, there is no even-handedness, none whatsoever.

mjr wrote:[.....In short, the law says one should have legal front and rear position lights of 4 candela (about 50 lumens) flashing or BS or K-marked or equivalent, even on "a segregated cycle path", even on a restricted byway or bridleway. ....

I presume that 50 lumens is assuming no focusing optics, as ye olde filament-bulb NEver Ready rear nightriders managed to exceed BS6102/3's 4cd minimum (by 16cd!!) with 9.5/4=2.374 red lumens from filtered filament bulb(cos red filter reduces 9.5 white lumens by 4). Even so it seems quite high given that red leds need no divide by 4?

SA_SA_SA wrote:

mjr wrote:[.....In short, the law says one should have legal front and rear position lights of 4 candela (about 50 lumens) flashing or BS or K-marked or equivalent, even on "a segregated cycle path", even on a restricted byway or bridleway. ....

I presume that 50 lumens is assuming no focusing optics, as ye olde filament-bulb NEver Ready rear nightriders managed to exceed BS6102/3's 4cd minimum (by 16cd!!) with 9.5/4=2.374 red lumens from filtered filament bulb(cos red filter reduces 9.5 white lumens by 4). Even so it seems quite high given that red leds need no divide by 4?

As I understand it, it's assuming no focusing optics or even reflector - definitely not anything as fancy as white-vs-red lumens - and that you want 4cd showing to the side as well as "to the rear" as required by the current regs. You could maybe halve that with a reflector, depending on any case law about interpreting "to the rear", but if you've got 50 lumens, it'll have to be a really silly design not to emit 4cd.

Crudely, anything as bright as the obsolete Cateye TL-LD50 is probably legal now because I think that was 50 lumens behind a plain lens with no reflector, spending a chunk of its lumens lighting up its circuit board.

Sadly, Cateye's tail light naming went a bit strange after that, as I think the TL-LD270 referred to the viewing angle and the 500 in TL-LD500 seems to be from combining the 50 hours battery life on steady with the 100 hours on flashing! Then number inflation seems to have produced the shorter-life 600, 610, 650... and so on until marketing took over the product names with things like Rapid. I hoped the GVolt range might have kept sanity (the front ones are numbered according to their lux), but viewtopic.php?p=1310037#p1310037 makes me think not

mjr wrote:....As I understand it, it's assuming no focusing optics or even reflector - definitely not anything as fancy as white-vs-red lumens - and that you want 4cd showing to the side as well as "to the rear" as required by the current regs. You could maybe halve that with a reflector, depending on any case law about interpreting "to the rear", ....

Well The 4cd in BS6102/3 only seems to the brightest 'central' point A, within a square of 2cd minimum covers a square of +-5 degrees (within the 4 points B). Between 45degrees and 110 degrees horizontal (between points F and E) the BS requires only 0.075cd so I presume your "you want 4cd ..to the side" expresses your desire rather than your view of the flashing law (NB I am not sure many car lamps manage 4cd at 90degrees) however I do like a wide bright (eg 6-13cd but say 25cd absolute max) rear central beam to allow for (mis)alignment, and off axis approach, and reasonable side visibility. I would interpret the 4cd law on sole rear flashers as meaning a lamps minimum centralish intensity is 4cd and relying on the light source not being a laser for the surrounding smaller values specified in BS: I presume it is presumed to be the job ofthe cyclist is to align the lamps so that the 4cd faces centrally rearward (unlike most Never ready rear nightriders I saw which were mounted with vertical batteries and thus pointed 20cd at the sky!!)