Cycling Eyesight Standards
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
So now a member might have smacked themselves very firmly in order to repent for daring suppose a cyclist was male, presumably since said cyclist was referred to as a 'gent'. Whom I suppose could be a person phsically resembling a female but aspiring to be a gentleman?
Then I saw this, and realise I could be chastised for repeating the word 'gent'. Will anyone be chastised for suggesting someone else was sexist, because they might have accidentally mis-read the description? But didn't.
Has Barrowman's friend without a driving licence decided what to do yet with regards cycling? I hope they give it a try, at least, as surely the safe requirements for driving a car are of a different order than riding a bike?
Then I saw this, and realise I could be chastised for repeating the word 'gent'. Will anyone be chastised for suggesting someone else was sexist, because they might have accidentally mis-read the description? But didn't.
Has Barrowman's friend without a driving licence decided what to do yet with regards cycling? I hope they give it a try, at least, as surely the safe requirements for driving a car are of a different order than riding a bike?
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
Ah, there's the rub. .... "....a sensible person".Carlton green wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 2:24pm
Much earlier in the thread I mentioned a chap local to me who gets about very nicely on his e-bike despite poor vision which took his driving licence away … if you want a guide then be guided by such examples of what can be done by a sensible person.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the decision to cycle with poor eyesight must surely be made with an honest self-appraisal of how bad the eyesight has become and whether its still sufficient to enable safe cycling in the modes and environments the could-be cyclist is contemplating. And of course, there'll be circumstances in which the answer will be, "I can cycle safely with no undue risk to myself or others".
Mind, if I were such a would-be cyclist I'd be wary of those fast downhills, the roads with lots of entrances, junction & gates and similar environments where any kind of speedy cycling might risk a "saw it too late". Not an easy matter to judge, really., since few will cycle only on the few, same, easily judged roads in never-changing circumstances.
But perhaps the greatest issue with this is that (in my experience of many such cases) the person with the slowly failing sight is loathe to admit to it; or to accept the many limitations it can impose. I know several older acquaintances still driving who are definitely, certainly and indisputably not really fit to do so, for various reasons besides failing eyesight. Unfortunately they get away, day after day, with driving when not fit to do so until one day they meet the circumstances which proves this.
So, the main problem might be finding "a sensible person" in these sort of circumstances, who will in fact make a sensible decision about such a choice as riding an e-bike when the sight is far from 20/20. Nor do I discount myself as a potentially not-sensible one, since no one knows how their underlying mental churns will persuade them to do something unwise for "reasons" not generally falling into the categories: "rational"; or "objective"; or "sensible".
So perhaps we do need external rules about it? Personally I'd test every would-be cyclist (including me) for competence, as I would drivers of other vehicles - regularly and vigorously, especially as we get older. What objection could there be to such a test other than the cost & bureaucracy? If I'm not competent to drive or cycle, I want to know, so I won't, see?
Cugel, not wanting to end up insensible in the road.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
But don't we all moderate our speed according to visibililty? If it's foggy, then your favourite fast descent may well be taken a bit slower. Same as descending at night.Cugel wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 2:58pm Mind, if I were such a would-be cyclist I'd be wary of those fast downhills, the roads with lots of entrances, junction & gates and similar environments where any kind of speedy cycling might risk a "saw it too late". Not an easy matter to judge, really., since few will cycle only on the few, same, easily judged roads in never-changing circumstances.
Why not assume that our gentleman poster's friend's gentleman friend is possessed of similar assessment skills?
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
You make a good point. It's surely possible and, you would think, a natural reaction in one poorly-sighted. However, I know a lot of car drivers who are poorly sighted, or so decrepit that they have the reaction times of a snail, who go about in the same manner they always have, including their habitual speeds.mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 3:16pmBut don't we all moderate our speed according to visibililty? If it's foggy, then your favourite fast descent may well be taken a bit slower. Same as descending at night.Cugel wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 2:58pm Mind, if I were such a would-be cyclist I'd be wary of those fast downhills, the roads with lots of entrances, junction & gates and similar environments where any kind of speedy cycling might risk a "saw it too late". Not an easy matter to judge, really., since few will cycle only on the few, same, easily judged roads in never-changing circumstances.
Why not assume that our gentleman poster's friend's gentleman friend is possessed of similar assessment skills?
But there is an argument that the consequences of cycling a bit too fast for one's failing eyesight is far, far less likely to do harm than the same syndrome when driving a car. As with all such cases, no easy answers, eh?
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
Safe in the delusion of safety given by lane control, stability control, traction control, auto-lights on, auto wipers, airbags lurking in more places than you'd think exist, a voice instructing which lane to choose, which exit or junction to use, when to anticipate slow-moving traffic and so on. Just no voice to suggest the driver engages their brain on the road ahead a little more. I don't believe 'hands-free' phone use is much, if at all, safer. It's the strange way in which the brain can be lured away from what's happening when on the phone rather than the physical act of holding it.
I'm concerned the modern car's secondary controls (often a screen and two or three buttons) are distracting, confusing and awkward to use even for the young, let alone those of us who grew up with telephones which demanded small change and had a sprung-loaded rotary input dial. They're clearly engineered for cost rather than safety.
On a winding rural road, being able to rapidly push more warm air on to the windscreen when it starts fogging a little by feeling for a rotary control makes far more sense than negotiating a menu system to access the desired control 'button'. I know voice control is rapidly coming into use, but I can also see the way in which this could be dangerous if Siri or whoever mishears.
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
I'm not sure it's less likely to do harm, the harm coursed could be less or could not, it's very instance specificCugel wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 3:45pmYou make a good point. It's surely possible and, you would think, a natural reaction in one poorly-sighted. However, I know a lot of car drivers who are poorly sighted, or so decrepit that they have the reaction times of a snail, who go about in the same manner they always have, including their habitual speeds.mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 3:16pmBut don't we all moderate our speed according to visibililty? If it's foggy, then your favourite fast descent may well be taken a bit slower. Same as descending at night.Cugel wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 2:58pm Mind, if I were such a would-be cyclist I'd be wary of those fast downhills, the roads with lots of entrances, junction & gates and similar environments where any kind of speedy cycling might risk a "saw it too late". Not an easy matter to judge, really., since few will cycle only on the few, same, easily judged roads in never-changing circumstances.
Why not assume that our gentleman poster's friend's gentleman friend is possessed of similar assessment skills?
But there is an argument that the consequences of cycling a bit too fast for one's failing eyesight is far, far less likely to do harm than the same syndrome when driving a car. As with all such cases, no easy answers, eh?
Cugel
-
- Posts: 3719
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
Quite, diminished sight has little to no link to whether someone makes decisions responsibly or not.mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 3:16pmBut don't we all moderate our speed according to visibililty? If it's foggy, then your favourite fast descent may well be taken a bit slower. Same as descending at night.Cugel wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 2:58pm Mind, if I were such a would-be cyclist I'd be wary of those fast downhills, the roads with lots of entrances, junction & gates and similar environments where any kind of speedy cycling might risk a "saw it too late". Not an easy matter to judge, really., since few will cycle only on the few, same, easily judged roads in never-changing circumstances.
Why not assume that our gentleman poster's friend's gentleman friend is possessed of similar assessment skills?
When we ride do we not all consider hazards ahead, potential hazards, and how quickly we could stop if necessary? When it’s dark do we not all consider how much we can see and moderate our pace accordingly? Those that don’t proceed with such caution are surely destined for a mishap, but involvement in such unfortunate events tends to later encourage greater responsibility for your own safety and the safety of others (who’s responses might be somewhat less than friendly if they’re injured due to a cyclist’s stupidity).
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
I know!
Lets close the entire road system on any occasion there isn't perfect visibility.
No more driving/riding in fog, snow, rain, darkness.....just think how safe we will all be!
No driving East in the mornings, or west in the evenings, because of the low sun in your eyes.
Where do you people live?
How do you go about your daily lives?
Arrogance is the biggest risk factor on the roads, not poor sight.
Lets close the entire road system on any occasion there isn't perfect visibility.
No more driving/riding in fog, snow, rain, darkness.....just think how safe we will all be!
No driving East in the mornings, or west in the evenings, because of the low sun in your eyes.
Where do you people live?
How do you go about your daily lives?
Arrogance is the biggest risk factor on the roads, not poor sight.
Bike fitting D.I.Y. .....http://wheel-easy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bike-set-up-2017a.pdf
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/
-
- Posts: 2928
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
The increase in road accidents during all kinds of bad weather is pretty good evidence that people don't.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
― Friedrich Nietzsche
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
I've read that damage only incedents do increase in icy weather, but fatalities decrease.axel_knutt wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 6:05pmThe increase in road accidents during all kinds of bad weather is pretty good evidence that people don't.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
-
- Posts: 3719
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
Quite, well that and general stupidity.Arrogance is the biggest risk factor on the roads, not poor sight.
The best part of fifty years ago I was on a motorbike in North Wales, racing around the corner ahead of me came three cars abreast. They missed me because I (rider on bike) was slim but had I been driving a car then someone might well have been fatally injured. Someone can have perfect vision, wonderful driving skills and lightening fast reactions but if their brain is switched off then the consequences may well not be good.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: Cycling Eyesight Standards
Nonsense - that just suggests they don't moderate speeds enough!axel_knutt wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 6:05pmThe increase in road accidents during all kinds of bad weather is pretty good evidence that people don't.