PDQ Mobile wrote:
Now you tell me as a cyclist to slow down!
From 17mph downhill! Sorry.
I cycle for fitness, pleasure and practicality.
This is not some Sunday sightseeing outing.
Which really valiates you r ight to travel at an inappropraite spped?
You want 20mph for cars on roads, 10 or less for cyclists on very empty shared paths just becsuse a few bone heads can't be bothered to recognise risk and take some responsibity.
Now whose advocating the nanny state??
If those few boneheads are not taking responsibility for their speed to recognise the risks and how they are endangering others, then, unfortunately, speed limits are the way to remedy the issue
Sorry, I expect people to show lights or at least keep their wits about them.
That's what I do.
And I haven't hit one bone head yet.
So it is up to them to compensate for your failures.... really?
The dipped light is my way of describing my polite and sensible use of a cycle light. Its perfectly adequate but doesn't blind others.
LOve to know which light you are using. I am aware of lights with different intensities, I am also aware of a few lights with properly filtered and coned beams, but none that offer dipped"
You have simply no idea where that light safely guides me, steep(as in 1:4) narrow twisty leafy and pitch black.
One "off" round here into a stone wall and it really hurts or worse, and it hasn't happened yet.
I don't wear a helmet either.
This is not soft light polluted S England!
One has to wonder whether with a brighter light and slower sped, you would have seen the wall, and been able to take appropriate action?
You are arguing one minute for no torches, no reflective or visible clothes and telling me the next minute to get brighter lights.
Make your mind up time.
No need... it is obvious.
If you travel faster, you need a longer stopping distance, a brighter light offers the additional illumination. It is not up to others to compensate for you choosing to ride at a speed where you cannot stop in the distance you can see